4 ms·
He applauds MS for continually supporting their legacy software... my opinion is that such legacy support is what continually hampers their rapid development
by pmsaue0 16y ago
He applauds MS for continually supporting their legacy software... my opinion is that such legacy support is what continually hampers their rapid development
- brazzy 16y agoWhen it comes to viability as an infrastructure for business, downwards compatibility clearly trumps rapid development. The same can be seen with Java: having all the shiny, fashionable features the tech geek blogs are abuzz with may be nice... but having old, boring, clunky, uncool software that your business depends on continue to work is far, far more valuable.
- droz 16y agoI think this is an important point that most people forget. Most developers may be interested in doing the latest and greatest thing, but unless it can add value to an organization, then it is worthless.
- icarus_drowning 16y agoWhile this is true, there is certainly a point where backward compatibility becomes a bit absurd. I'd personally peg it around the 15-year mark.
- flomo 16y agoAbsurd, and extremely profitable for the vendor which provides it. IBM mainframes can run binaries that are nearly 45 years old for example.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- icarus_drowning 16y agoYes, but in the case of IBM mainframes, my grandmother (to use the oft-cited example) also doesn't have to deal with the inevitable issues that arise from this kind of rabid attachment to the idea of backward compatibility. Granted, she also doesn't have to worry about whether or not her 12-year-old copy of freeware Whist software will work either. Still, I think there is a big difference between a mainframe manufacturer taking on the burden and selling it to corporate customers and Microsoft forcing that burden onto millions of "normal" people EDIT: Clarification in opening sentence.