From: Tim R. <ti...@pr...> - 2011-07-13 18:52:17
|
Pete Batard wrote: > On 2011.07.13 18:49, Tim Roberts wrote: >> That's just not acceptable. > It is to me. And I believe it is to many users. It's called not using > obsolete apps. I can't believe you're saying that with a straight face. Your attitude borders on criminal negligence. The whole POINT of using multiple-precision version numbers is to provide some kind of contract guarantee. Now, if you want this to remain a toy project that lives in obscurity in laboratories and garages, then by all means churn the API all you want. But if you want people to take this library seriously, then they have to know that an application designed for 1.0.5 is still going to run with 1.0.10. > If the other application that broke from the shared lib update cannot be > updated, it means that whoever developed the app is not longer spending > time on it, and therefore, you are better off not using it. That's utter horse shit. An application binary that works today should continue to work forever. Microsoft has learned that lesson. Apple never has, and that's why Microsoft has a 98% market share. Microsoft takes it to unnecessary extremes, but what you're talking about is easy stuff. > Yeah, that does not sit too well in a corporate environment. Of course not, and whether you like it or not, that's what the computing world is today. > Just like you wouldn't use an OS that doesn't see updates, you shouldn't > use an app that isn't upgraded as it should. Are you hereby volunteering to notify the developer of every application using libusb that the API is going to change between 1.0.9 and 1.0.10? Otherwise, what you're talking about is raw, unjustified arrogance on the part of a relatively minor programming tool. I'm surprised. You've made me angry. That doesn't happen very often. -- Tim Roberts, ti...@pr... Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. |