4 ms·
Also amusing is that things I wrote for win32 in 2000 still run now on Windows 11.
by siggen 4y ago
Also amusing is that things I wrote for win32 in 2000 still run now on Windows 11.
- jeroenhd 4y agoYou might be able to make your application "modern" through something like http://www.boxedwine.org/ http://www.boxedwine.org/ to run it in the browser ;)
- actionfromafar 4y agoAnd Wine.
- ChrisLTD 4y agoGood point. Windows, Linux, and the web don’t suffer the kind of software churn we see on Apple platforms.
- fortran77 4y agoActually, Linux does, too.
- dagw 4y agoLinux is every bit as bad on this front, especially when it comes to GUI apps. The only reason it isn't completely obvious is that most apps are recompiled from source for every version update of every distro out there.
- TuringTest 4y agoBeing recompiled from source for every distro update is the expected model for Linux software. Why should it be considered "bad"?
- dagw 4y agoBecause it leads to the problem described in the article, where an application from just 2-3 years ago won't work on your up to date Linux distro, unless you (or your distro maintainer) have access its source code. However many Linux users seem to consider this a feature.
- TuringTest 4y agoYes, because that's the design of the whole system. Having the source code of the software you use is an important feature, and not having it is the cause of the problem you describe - as well as many others.
- marcosdumay 4y agoGTK and Qt basically¹ churned their code once on this century. The other widget libraries didn't change at all. And at least Debian comes with the previous version of GTK, if you want to depend on it. What, of course, nobody does, because staying up to date is a matter of recompiling and changing a few function calls. (It doesn't have Qt3, probably because it's much harder to ship multiple Qt versions system-wide.) And, of course, you can always include your widgets with your code. This is basically the amount of churning you get for any general application because of the glibc instability. That one is hard to circumvent, but there shouldn't be more of it on the future. 1 - Qt has had two incompatible changes, one of them removed almost nothing, GTK literally has had one. There is, of course the Qt6 thing, that breaks everything again, but I doubt people will migrate.
- hedora 4y agoYes, but gnome two and three cannot coexist on the same box, so distros like Mint ended up forking Debian to preserve access to the old gtk ecosystem. Later, gnome announced they were moving to a rolling release model that would routinely break backward compatibility. Since then, I've stopped paying attention, but noticed that QT utilities are slowly replacing all the (still maintained, but stalled, feature wise) gnome programs I used to use.
- jcelerier 4y agoOn a 500kloc Qt codebase I had maybe 4/5 files which needed changes following Qt5 -> Qt6, plus a couple of bugs that cropped up in the early versions. Plus most of the issues were in private API uses which are outside of the stability contract anyways. Now I know that I'm safe from breaking changes for at least 3/4 years until Qt7 ... Wouldn't call that churn haha.
- ZoomZoomZoom 4y agoIt's not particularly amusing, because it's normal and what users expect (by not caring in the slightest when the program was written).