Breaking backwards compatiblity

deadalnix deadalnix at gmail.com
Sun Mar 11 08:29:36 PDT 2012


Le 10/03/2012 20:37, Walter Bright a écrit :
> On 3/10/2012 10:58 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> Win9x's success is mainly attributable to Microsoft's superior marketing
>> strategies. It can hardly be called a success technology-wise.
>
> Oh, I disagree with that. Certainly, Win9x was a compromise, but it
> nailed being a transition operating system from 16 to 32 bit, and it
> nailed making Windows an attractive target for game developers.

Windows 3.1 had patches provided by microsoft to handle 32bits. But this 
is quite offtopic. Win9x was good back then. Now it is crap.

When doing something new (like D) you don't only need to provide 
something as good as what existed before. Actually, providing better 
isn't enough either. You need to provide enough to compensate the cost 
of the change, and additionally communication/marketing must convince 
user to switch.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list