Breaking backwards compatiblity

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:48:46AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.517.1331521772.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:38:12PM +0100, deadalnix wrote:
> >>
> >> I think a better solution is including expected performances in the
> >> user stories and add them in the testing suite. Dev can enjoy a
> >> powerful machine without risking to get a resource monster as a
> >> final executable.
> >
> > Even better, have some way of running your program with artificially
> > reduced speed & resources, so that you can (sortof) see how your
> > program degrades with lower-powered systems.
> >
> > Perhaps run the program inside a VM or emulator?
> >
> 
> I don't think such things would ever truly work, except maybe in
> isolated cases. It's an issue of dogfooding. But then these "eat your
> cake and then still have it" strategies ultimately mean that you're
> *not* actually doing the dogfooding, just kinda pretending to.
> Instead, you'd be eating steak seven days a week, occasionally do a
> half-bite of dogfooding, and immediately wash it down with...I dunno,
> name some fancy expensive drink, I don't know my wines ;)
[...]

Nah, it's like ordering extra large triple steak burger with
double-extra cheese, extra bacon, sausage on the side, extra large
french fries swimming in grease, and _diet_ coke to go with it.


T

-- 
Blunt statements really don't have a point.