3 ms·

Yes, it is about should, and saying "it's a bit old" doesn't justify it. Why is 8 years self-evidently "long enough"? Banks have code from the 1960s still runn

Yes, it is about should, and saying "it's a bit old" doesn't justify it. Why is 8 years self-evidently "long enough"? Banks have code from the 1960s still running, and plenty of people have industrial hardware much older than that. Many of my household appliances are older. It's only "obsolete" code because Apple has decided it is, it didn't rot.

Doingmything123 7y ago
"Long enough" is for certain a relative term. I don't think we should be making the comparison to banking software/appliances though. Banks are notoriously slow and I would think are more concerned with correctness than new features. Given how often we see complaints about archaic banking software I'm not sure if 1960's code is a good thing but it has longevity by design. Apple does not need to play by these rules and as an end user I'm ok with that. I think Apple should optimize for the 97-99% of average users even if it is at the expense of a few and I see this change in that lens. Besides, the users who use 8+ year old software probably have the know-how and the will to jury-rig a solution to get around this.
code_sloth 7y ago
> Banks have code from the 1960s still running The only reason "old code" still works in banks is because untold man hours are spent wrapping around it, working around it, and testing it. A long time ago, some exec saw that some old thing needed updating because the world has changed. There are new regulations, new customers types, new products, new strategies... A bunch of people get hired. A bright future of next thing is promised. It gets everyone excited and devs start cutting little chunks away off the old thing, making a new thing. Now there are 2 things to maintain, but that's ok, some day new thing will become next thing. But the exec leaves (probably to another bank) before the next thing became a thing. Another exec comes in, declares the new thing is crap because it doesn't quite get the job done. A next next thing is planned. The previous new thing is now the old new thing. It will be removed, someday. Just not today, because it's _a_ thing now. old new thing will be sunset when next next thing arrives. Many many years and several execs later, there are many things maintained by a small army of devs and testers. These things work in really strange, archaic, or even stupid ways. Nobody knows how (or worse, why) the entire system works. The most knowledgeable people only know how it _behaves_. But it's there, still working. And your money is in that thing of things. Many peoples' money are in it. That's not necessarily a good thing.

Doingmything123 7y ago

"Long enough" is for certain a relative term. I don't think we should be making the comparison to banking software/appliances though. Banks are notoriously slow and I would think are more concerned with correctness than new features. Given how often we see complaints about archaic banking software I'm not sure if 1960's code is a good thing but it has longevity by design. Apple does not need to play by these rules and as an end user I'm ok with that. I think Apple should optimize for the 97-99% of average users even if it is at the expense of a few and I see this change in that lens. Besides, the users who use 8+ year old software probably have the know-how and the will to jury-rig a solution to get around this.

code_sloth 7y ago

> Banks have code from the 1960s still running The only reason "old code" still works in banks is because untold man hours are spent wrapping around it, working around it, and testing it. A long time ago, some exec saw that some old thing needed updating because the world has changed. There are new regulations, new customers types, new products, new strategies... A bunch of people get hired. A bright future of next thing is promised. It gets everyone excited and devs start cutting little chunks away off the old thing, making a new thing. Now there are 2 things to maintain, but that's ok, some day new thing will become next thing. But the exec leaves (probably to another bank) before the next thing became a thing. Another exec comes in, declares the new thing is crap because it doesn't quite get the job done. A next next thing is planned. The previous new thing is now the old new thing. It will be removed, someday. Just not today, because it's _a_ thing now. old new thing will be sunset when next next thing arrives. Many many years and several execs later, there are many things maintained by a small army of devs and testers. These things work in really strange, archaic, or even stupid ways. Nobody knows how (or worse, why) the entire system works. The most knowledgeable people only know how it _behaves_. But it's there, still working. And your money is in that thing of things. Many peoples' money are in it. That's not necessarily a good thing.