Doesn't always mean nobody's home, I have great hesitation in using something that releases often, its an indication the developer(s) are hopeless, especially if its constant bug fixes - you only need to look at phpmy.... as an example, it used to be good, but in recent years, dev_#1 brought on more people, since then, frankly its gone to shit and there are updates weekly, sometimes twice a week, its well beyond a joke.
Yes compilers change, but good coders anticipate this, for example dnews hasn't been updated since 2008 which was only a minor change for those feeding off giganews at the time (they sent an unusual AUTH response, so only a line of code extra IIRC), its base code however is circa _2004_ yet runs fine on modern 32 bit systems - thats a sign of clever devs, its does the job fine, better than anything else around even today (barring 64bit ability and its lack of IPv6 which is easy enough to work around anyway), so there is the proof just because somethings not updated in many years it isnt always a bad thing. On 15/03/2015 11:27, Greg Troxel wrote: > An update every 18-24 months would have been fine, even if there were > only minor bug fixes. I was pointing out that the interval between > releases was 8 years. That's enough time for compilers to change and > generate new warnings, and various other things, so not having a release > in 8 years is a clue that on one is home upsteram. In the case of
