Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?

Right Gary,

But Tony raises a valid point. If we upgrade our machines to the latest
OS, and also the latest compilers, the critical issue is that there will
be compatibility issue when the compilation takes place on the newer OS
and/or with the new development tools.

It is not something you thought about. If you designed and compiler for
WIN32, with or without specific OS dependent logic you explicitly
programmed, it was expected to work.

I can't help but feel of late, if I can have that confidence any more.

I feel better when you (Gary Chanson) says:

"This is a concept that Microsoft believes in and takes
to extremes,"

I like to continue to believe this and my practical side says MS would
be stupid not to honor this.

But MS needs to be aware that they are beginning to scare people with
all this new "OS" (Longhorn, Now Vista) and even current OS .NET
foundation dependency. Are we getting to a point we were need to keep
the VS 6.0 and W2K around just to guarantee WIN32 support?


--
Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com



"Gary Chanson" <gjchanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eWS3AK0#FHA.3676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>
>> I personally would not expect backwards compatibility (as defined
above)
>> because I've seen the issues that can arise. However, I'm looking for
a link
>> to any statement on the subject in relation to the Windows O/S
>
> You're looking through the telescope in the wrong direction.
Backward
> compatibility is when the newer version of the OS will still properly
run
> programs written for the older version. This is a concept that
Microsoft
> believes in and takes to extremes, while Apple scoffs at it.
>
> You can not expect the reverse. You can write programs which will
run on
> older versions by restricting the APIs you use to the ones supported
by the
> older versions, but then you're taking advantage of backward
compatibility.
> You can also write programs which are smart enough to run an multiple
> versions. More then this isn't possible because it would require
older
> versions to be aware of the capabilities of newer versions (where did
I put my
> time machine?).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Williams system 9 & system 11 compatibility
    ... I was wondering if William's System 11 machines were backward ...  Or better yet can the Roms swap out into the ... I know this would be the case if the two machines were the same ... backward compatibility. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Williams system 9 & system 11 compatibility
    ... I was wondering if William's System 11 machines were backward ... Or better yet can the Roms swap out into the ... I know this would be the case if the two machines were the same ... backward compatibility. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Immutability of computer languages nee History of French
    ... an exceptionally high degree of backward ... > compatibility is maintained." ... The old FORTRAN stuff I've compiled under new compilers has compiled ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: C# Plugin system - same interface in two different assemblies...
    ... easy to see why the .NET designers went with the tried and true approach of just checking a unique identifier for each type. ... This is essentially what you achieve with COM by saying "yes, I implement this interface with this UID too", but then you want it by structural compatibility, not an agreed-upon UID. ... I'm not sure what you mean, as GCC, Intel, and Microsoft's compilers all produce compatible plugins for several products in our product suite. ... As long as you don't get subtle with multiple inheritance, method pointers or exceptions, those compilers will all produce the same low-level binary stuff to make sure it'll work with the other compilers. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: how to declare doubles in f95
    ... that's not what I was referring to. ... you seem to be referring to machines instead of compilers. ... find that they have 64-bit default reals, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)