3 ms·
Sure, they were relying on an undocumented feature, but it's not like the GNU Make developers didn't know about this. They explicitly called out the backwards i
by lambda 13y ago
Sure, they were relying on an undocumented feature, but it's not like the GNU Make developers didn't know about this. They explicitly called out the backwards incompatible change in the release note; they knew they were breaking compatibility.
My point is that even undocumented features are an important part of backwards compatibility. If there is software out there relying on it, breaking it and saying "well, they were relying on an undocumented feature" doesn't actually help your users at all. Is your goal to ensure that developers do everything the way you tell them to all the time, and punish them if they don't? Or is your goal to provide software that your users can use to do their jobs?
- Yaa101 13y agoI disagree, when using undocumented features, the burden is fully on the developer using these features. It is how the world works, when you use undocumented features in every aspect of life (e.g. not following the rules) it is great when you get away with that, but don't expect the world to bend their rules to accommodate you, that only happens when a majority goes that path, and often it doesn't even happen then.
- DrewAllyn 13y agoIn theory that sounds great, but as we've seen with make, the end result is that the users of make just didn't upgrade. If that's not a desirable outcome for you, then it's on you to prevent that. No else is going to.
- jbooth 13y agoNo, how the world works is that you satisfy your users or your users go someplace else. Microsoft gets this. Linus gets this. FSF and GNU, while I love their ideals, are apparently a bit too ivory tower to actually get it on things like this.