[comp.lang.c] *\\"LDA\\" ok?

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.BITNET

ken@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