Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?


"Hector Santos" <nospamhere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OdB7fr1%23FHA.2264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

Just because I didn't mention it doesn't mean that I didn't think about
it. The Platform SDK defaults to very conservative compatibility settings and
requires various #defines to enable newer features. It takes explicit
programming to *BREAK* compatibility.

> 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?

That remains to be seen but I don't think so.

--

-GJC [MS Windows SDK MVP]
-Software Consultant (Embedded systems and Real Time Controls)
- http://www.mvps.org/ArcaneIncantations/consulting.htm
-gchanson@xxxxxxxx


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: good c compiler
    ... software that compiles under MSVC. ... There are valid reasons for doing this and these apply to closed source libraries as well as open source code. ... For all I know unlike with some other compilers you provide no compatibility with libraries built with MSVC, I just assumed your users might want to be able to use third-party pre-built libraries, since I know that I do, and in that case they need to be aware of any compatibility issues. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: usual nontechnical issues
    ... interest from MS in making compatibility complete). ... apps without spending an extra penny than Delphi Standard doesn't seem to ... players now might change when smaller players offer more cost-effective ... > of a bunch of 3rdparty compilers. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
    ... 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 ... but then you're taking advantage of backward ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: Rephrase - Could you sod off Spinoza
    ... Here p is the assertion that "C is a programming language" and q is ... recompiled using new compilers, and the old compilers are retained to ... best-selling and highly useful books of one Herbert Schildt... ... Evidence has been pointed at you that Herbert Schildt write inaccurate ...
    (comp.programming)