Today, Benjamin Scott gleaned this insight:
Ben, I always respect your opinion, and I don't even disagree with most of
what you say, but it boils down to one thing:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> > I certainly agree with Derek on the binary compatibility. Maintaining
> > binary compatibility causes the growth of libraries because of legacy
> > code.
>
> Only if you never phase out the older calls. I don't believe this is an
> "all or nothing" issue. Sometimes you need to break binary compatibility
> abruptly. Sometimes you want to provide a compatibility layer for awhile.
IF YOU PUT THEM IN, NO ONE EVER PHASES OUT THE OLDER CALLS. By and large,
it just doesn't happen. And the cruft thickens...
--
You know that everytime I try to go where I really want to be,
It's already where I am, cuz I'm already there...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek D. Martin | Unix/Linux Geek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
