3 ms·

There are no changes needed on application code side.

• nostrebored 8y ago
  What definition of maintained are you using? If they're doing security patches and bug fixes it's a maintained codebase.
  • jasonkester 8y ago
    We're using the definition a few notches upthread: "Dear manager, for the next weeks/sprint the team needs X days to upgrade the software to version x.x.x otherwise it will stop working" As opposed to: 2011: deploy website, turn on windows update 2011-2019: lead life as normal 2019: website is up and running, serving webpages, and not part of a botnet. That's reality today, and if it helps to refer to it as "maintained", that's fine. The point is that it's preferable to the alternative.
    • nostrebored 8y ago
      I think that the parent commenter is referencing node 4.3 being past EOL and being unmaintained software and therefore unfit for prod, unlike the ms stack which is receiving patches
      • akoncius 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework_version_history begs to differ.
        • marvy 8y ago
          node, not .net
          • akoncius 8y ago
            I was referring to comments that MS is good at backwards compatibility and “if you write application, it will run forever” and I pointed out that MS also breaks backward compatibility what regards languages.
  • yeahitslikethat 8y ago
    Installing Security patches for a ruby stack takes a full code coverage test suite, days of planning and even more to update code for breaking changes. Installing security patches for a Microsoft stack requires turning on windows update. There's a BIG difference. Once you write your msft stack app, is done. Microsoft apps written decades ago still work today with no code changes.
    • pnutjam 8y ago
      That's not true. Try running anything with VisualFoxPro. There are tons of programs that ran on XP and 7 and don't on 10.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]