You sound like someone who hasnt worked very long in the industry. Being realistic anout failure allows one to build better products. Simplicity and maintainability and most important replacability. Allows a software to fail and not the business
Well u sure made an effort to exclaim how hard it would be. If a developer had an install guide with links to dependencies or mirrors to those dependencies it wouldnt be very hard as they should have internally for their dev/ testing. Do windows devs not track their dependencies? Relying only on Win32 ? Whos the naive one ?
https://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/https://www.gtk.org/docs/installations/linux/
I mean it will probably not be painless and other applications u run might break* but xorg is relativly stable.
Liba are out there are free to get. Usually people are arguing that the conveniences isnt there not that its not possible.
* if u dont sandbox this a bit with custom lib paths
This is only because of the nature of dynamic linking. Have a statically linked executable and you should be fine. Not that it should be an issue to get old software to run you simply need to download the dependent lib versions.
Anyone who sais this i feel hasnt worked very much with software, not that you should need to thats up to the one distributing the executable
All well and good when u have an active dev team who knows the code. Have fun walking into a code base that has just been running for the last 5 years and all the consultants that created it have left.
I guess, some languages get around this by having a destinction between functions and keyword functions not having the () braces in the syntax. But really if ur defning functions as keywords u should just put it in the standard library
I dont undestand your example, plenty of languages add new keywords without breaking backwards compatibility, its removing a keyword that would cause such and issue.
Has python really though? still my company has a bunch of 2.7 lying around that not one is touching.
I would like to flip your question on its head and ask why does any language need a breaking change ever? Might as well create a new language in that case
Id like to specify that i never stated that people “off themselves” purely from suicide. Drugs, alocohol, suicide, social isolation are all fair gain when combating the strugles of humanity
Nothing against the project or talk itself. But kinda funny when a talk starts with “i bet many of you thought X was a solved problem, well im here to tell u it isnt.”
Git was populare not because its somehow revolutionary, its popular because the previous options where so increadibly shit. Any alternative to git is gonna have a hard time without that advantage
Freud stated this in his future of an illusion. The (righfull in his opinion) decline of chritian church institutions would lead to higher untreated mental illness. Though he also predicted the regression of the subconscious into a more supressed state. Leading to a society unable to deal with it in any meaningful way.