3 ms·
A comment below says that Microsoft didn't write it (but Design Science). Maybe the C++ patch was rejected because the source code did not follow Microsoft codi
by reacweb 9y ago
A comment below says that Microsoft didn't write it (but Design Science). Maybe the C++ patch was rejected because the source code did not follow Microsoft coding rules mandating a complete rewrite of the code. To avoid a huge development cost, one rule has to be violated: either the binary patch or bad code. We can speculate many reasonable scenarios to explain what happened. I do not see any shame on Microsoft.
- eesmith 9y agoIn your scenario, Microsoft is making a probabilistic statement ("a bet") that there will not be many future changes to the code. That is, the binary patch path is more expensive than code patches, because it requires more specialized skills. At some point, with enough patches, it would have been worthwhile to update the source and rebuild than to modify the binary.