3 ms·
The backwards-compatibility is probably an institutional thing. I've dealt with a Microsoft storage library for Java once that had an absolutely idiotic bug -
by maltalex 8y ago
The backwards-compatibility is probably an institutional thing.
I've dealt with a Microsoft storage library for Java once that had an absolutely idiotic bug - you'd store a certain value, but would get something slightly different when retrieving it in 100% of cases [0]. I reported the bug and it was quickly fixed. But what amazed me was that the next version came out with a page long description [1] and analysis of the bug, its meaning for compatibility with other storage clients in different cases, the fix, and astonishingly a new flag you could enable if you want to keep retrieving screwed up values.
[0]: https://github.com/Azure/azure-storage-java/issues/30 https://github.com/Azure/azure-storage-java/issues/30
[1]: https://github.com/Azure/azure-storage-java/wiki/Java,-Android-Storage-Client-Library-Date-Bug-Resolution https://github.com/Azure/azure-storage-java/wiki/Java,-Andro...
- tossaway1 8y ago> The backwards-compatibility is probably an institutional thing. And the apparent routing of all bug reports and feature requests to /dev/null -- er, the recycling bin -- certainly seems to be an institutional thing. I have no doubt that thousands of their paying customers have complained about this to Microsoft over the years and it had to have been ridiculously simple to address.