3 ms·
While 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.
by icarus_drowning 16y ago
While 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.