Paul G. Allen wrote:
I expect everything I write to be around for a long time.
Bully for you. That doesn't mean that's true for everyone.
Of course, planning that still doesn't help, when your open platform
changes out from under you as well. That's why when I use open software,
I tend to stick with languages that actually worry about backward
compatibility, rather than making arbitrary incompatible changes every
minor release.
I know of many more that don't use Windows at all
Hey, you asked. If I say "I disagree with you", it's not a logical
answer to say "You're wrong because you disagree with me." Nor is it
logical to say "That's not an example because I don't personally do that."
If one is going to put the effort into writing something, even if they
think it's a one-off, why do it so that it only runs on a single
platform and can't be used elsewhere? It's never a good idea to assume a
program will never be needed again, as it often is.
I'll do you one better. For a while way back in prehistory, the computer
department would ask whether the code was a one-off, or whether it was
to be maintained and hence documented and so on. If they said it was a
one-off, we threw the program away once they accepted the output.
Most folks thought more carefully about it when they came back and we
gave them the same time estimate to run it again a week later.
In most cases, the "one-off" program can serve as a template/skeleton
for the next version, or the algorithms can be used in the new version
of the code. That's true, but having it in a specific language doesn't
particularly help that.
And if you want your program to be sophisticated and well-integrated
with the OS, it's not going to be particularly portable either.
When selecting something for either the use of my company, or use by
myself (whether at home or for my own business), I always consider the
cost or benefit of using something proprietary.
Me too. That I come up with a different answer doesn't make me wrong. It
just makes me different.
I imagine all those advertising agencies that use Macintosh computers
and Adobe software to work up the ads are losers too, because Apple and
Adobe only do proprietary stuff, yes?
I always avoid the
proprietary if at all possible, especially if it is not based upon a
truely open standard. Locking in to a certain vendor, platform, etc. is
a bad business practice, especially when dealing with PCs. I've seen how
much this costs companies in many aspects, and I can't think of a single
instance where the selection of a proprietary language was (or will ever
be) a Good Thing.
You have different experiences than I do. It may not necessarily be a
Good Thing as you say. If an open language can do with the proprietary
one can, that's obviously better. But the proprietary languages often
are superior in some ways to the open languages, and you have to balance
the value against the cost.
Hey, have you written a program in Perl that runs as a Windows service,
interacting with the USN journal? No, I didn't think so.
Given that MS is, to a large extent, working to maintain backward
compatibility in many things, and given that open source projects like
Ruby nevertheless needlessly break backward compatibility with every
minor release, I don't see where having it "open" is that big a win. How
many Java AWT-based applets still run?
How many of them ran, and still run, on multiple platforms?
How many of which ran and run on multiple platforms? This is a complete
nonsequiter, as far as I can see.
How many C#/.NET programs run on multiple platforms?
It doesn't much matter if you're only running it on one platform.
How portable are C#/.NET programs?
Ibid.
How long before M$ changes something in C#/.NET such that an
upgrade is required?
Long enough that the app probably gets rewritten a couple times before
then.
I have nothing against other people avoiding proprietary software. I
just get annoyed when some goob tells me I'm screwed because I didn't.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
His kernel fu is strong.
He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
