dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) (08/28/87)
From: Ray Butterworth <rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.EDU> >We speak of "evolving" languages, but somehow I think that if >Darwin had had to contend with the concept of "backward compatibility" >he would have given up. Would you call the changes in C from K&R to dpANS evolutionary? Biological evolution is on clock so slow that thousands of years are required to implement noticable change. Most technological change these days occurs so fast it's hard to keep up with it. Biological evolution doesn't have to "worry" about backward compatibility because changes occur so slowly that imcompatible organisms die before they have a chance to be a problem. Maybe if software had a mechanism for dying when it was past its prime we wouldn't have this problem. Unfortunately, though, most people are too short sighted to see the benefits of periodic regeneration and try to maintain their software long after it should have been retired. -Dave The opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Navy.
STROBL%DBNGMD21.BITNET@wiscvm.wis (Wolfgang Strobl 49+228303223) (08/29/87)
> changes occur so slowly that imcompatible organisms die before they
What are "imcompatible organisms"? I have never heard of that concept.
Wolfgang Strobl, STROBL@DBNGMD21.BITNETken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (08/29/87)
In article <9042@brl-adm.ARPA>, dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) writes: > Would you call the changes in C from K&R to dpANS evolutionary? > Biological evolution is on clock so slow that thousands of years are > required to implement noticable change. Biological evolution takes thousands of years? How about the resistence of insects to pesticides like DDT? Granted some of the insects may have already had the resistence, but I'd say that as a whole the insect species has evolved to become resistent to it. > Maybe if software had a mechanism for dying when it was past its prime > we wouldn't have this problem. Unfortunately, though, most people are > too short sighted to see the benefits of periodic regeneration and try > to maintain their software long after it should have been retired. We're coming up on a mechanism to hopefully encourage the death of antiquated software. What percentage of the programs are going to break when we reach the year 2000? My optimism is tempered with the sadened reality that most of these programs will just be patched instead of given a decent bural and re-written. > -Dave Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp !ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken *** NOT ken@bellcore.uucp *** bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet