(quotes are broken) On 25 July 2011 16:26, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26/07/2011, at 12:03 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > In contrast, as you mentioned, TCP/IP protocol which is backbone of > today's internet having much better design. > But i think this is a general problem of software evolution. No matter > how hard you try, you cannot foresee all kinds of interactions, > features and use cases for your system, when you designing it from the > beginning. > Because 20 years ago, systems has completely different requirements, > comparing to today's ones. So, what was good enough 20 years ago, > today is not very good. > > That makes no sense to me at all. How were the requirements radically > different? > I still use my computer to play games, communicate with friends and family, > solve problems, author text, make music and write programs. That's what I > did with my computer twenty years ago. My requirements are the same. Of > course, the sophistication and capacity of the programs has grown > considerably... so has the hardware... but the actual requirements haven't > changed much at all. >
If capacity of programs has grown, then there was a reason for it (read requirements)? Because if you stating that you having same requirements as 20 years ago, then why you don't using those old systems, but instead using today's ones? Speaking of requirements, a tooday's browser (Firefox) running on my machine takes more than 500Mb of system memory. I have no idea, why it consuming that much.. the fact is that you cannot run it on any 20-years old personal computer. > And here the problem: is hard to radically change the software, > especially core concepts, because everyone using it, get used to it , > because it made standard. > So you have to maintain compatibility and invent workarounds , patches > and fixes on top of existing things, rather than radically change the > landscape. > > I disagree with this entirely. Apple manage to change software radically... > by tying it with hardware upgrades (speed/capacity in hardware) and other > things people want (new features, ease of use). Connect something people > want with shifts in software architecture, or make the shift painless and > give some kind of advantage and people will upgrade, so long as the upgrade > doesn't somehow detract from the original, that is. Of course, if you don't > align something people want with software, people won't generally upgrade. > Apple can do whatever they want with their own proprietary hardware and software, as long as its their own. Now try to repeat the same in context of Web. Even if Apple will rewrite their Safari 5 times per year, they will still has to support HTTP, HTML, Javascript etc. So, you miss my point. > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
