4 ms·

Even if the compatibility layer is optional, Apple still has to maintain it and port it to new OS versions.

by creshal 10y ago

0x0 10y ago
With the resources that Apple has, it would be silly to throw out so much backwards compatibility just because "uh, effort".
- interpol_p 10y ago
  I don't think size and resources can effectively combat this sort of accrued technical debt. Once you have to maintain so much cruft it becomes emotionally difficult to write good software (at least, I experience this). I have a few personal projects that I have maintained for years, but the motivation required to refactor, clean and maintain the code gets bigger every year. You have to be passionate about the software you write. And unless you can find a team that is passionate about maintaining a 32 bit compatibility layer for old App Store apps, I think it would be a permanent burden on Apple.
- valuearb 10y ago
  This is the reasoning that made Windows so crappy for so many years.
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    It's also the reasoning that has left Windows so dominant for so many years. There are businesses that would go bankrupt overnight if Windows broke compatibility with 32-bit VB6 applications built at least a decade and a half ago.
wolfgke 10y ago
> Apple still has to maintain it and port it to new OS versions. Apple decided that they don't want to open-source it. That is the reason why Apple would have to maintain it.
- mulletbum 10y ago
  Apple shouldn't have to open-source anything they don't see fit to open-source for their own benefit.
- joshstrange 10y ago
  Ok, I love open source but let's not pretend it's that easy... "Just open source it" is something I hear from people that have never open sourced a large code base developed internally only. Look at RethinkDB, I never used it but I had wanted to on multiple occasions and it looks really awesome. They were open source from the start and yet the future of it now that the company is gone is uncertain at this time. All of this ignores the fact that the compatibility layer is much more than just 1 application and an integral part of the OS. I seriously doubt Apple plans to release tools to make development of said layer easy for for whoever can clone the project off github.
  - problems 10y ago
    With something like RethinkDB though, you're relying on it in production. With a compatibility layer or a game, you're just toying around, trying to make it run something. If it works - awesome, if it doesn't, you're not losing money over it. I think there's a substantial difference here.

Even if the compatibility layer is optional, Apple still has to maintain it and port it to new OS versions.

by creshal 10y ago

Even if the compatibility layer is optional, Apple still has to maintain it and port it to new OS versions.

0x0 10y ago

With the resources that Apple has, it would be silly to throw out so much backwards compatibility just because "uh, effort".

interpol_p 10y ago
I don't think size and resources can effectively combat this sort of accrued technical debt. Once you have to maintain so much cruft it becomes emotionally difficult to write good software (at least, I experience this). I have a few personal projects that I have maintained for years, but the motivation required to refactor, clean and maintain the code gets bigger every year. You have to be passionate about the software you write. And unless you can find a team that is passionate about maintaining a 32 bit compatibility layer for old App Store apps, I think it would be a permanent burden on Apple.
valuearb 10y ago
This is the reasoning that made Windows so crappy for so many years.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  It's also the reasoning that has left Windows so dominant for so many years. There are businesses that would go bankrupt overnight if Windows broke compatibility with 32-bit VB6 applications built at least a decade and a half ago.

wolfgke 10y ago

> Apple still has to maintain it and port it to new OS versions. Apple decided that they don't want to open-source it. That is the reason why Apple would have to maintain it.

mulletbum 10y ago
Apple shouldn't have to open-source anything they don't see fit to open-source for their own benefit.
joshstrange 10y ago
Ok, I love open source but let's not pretend it's that easy... "Just open source it" is something I hear from people that have never open sourced a large code base developed internally only. Look at RethinkDB, I never used it but I had wanted to on multiple occasions and it looks really awesome. They were open source from the start and yet the future of it now that the company is gone is uncertain at this time. All of this ignores the fact that the compatibility layer is much more than just 1 application and an integral part of the OS. I seriously doubt Apple plans to release tools to make development of said layer easy for for whoever can clone the project off github.
- problems 10y ago
  With something like RethinkDB though, you're relying on it in production. With a compatibility layer or a game, you're just toying around, trying to make it run something. If it works - awesome, if it doesn't, you're not losing money over it. I think there's a substantial difference here.