Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!usc!apple!netcomsv!resnicks
From: resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Where's the executable located?
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.174326.6580@netcom.COM>
Date: 27 Jun 91 17:43:26 GMT
References: <2613@gold.gvg.tek.com> <1991Jun25.174819.7992@netcom.COM> <745@sun4dts.dts.ine.philips.nl>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 83

In article <745@sun4dts.dts.ine.philips.nl> derek@sun4dts.dts.ine.philips.nl (derek) writes:
>resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes:

[Stuff deleted]

>>SoapBox: On
>
>>I would say to those running < DOS 3.1, "TOUGH!" We're THREE major
>>releases and a good 6 years from the time when 2.1 was released. I can
>>understand not fixing something that isn't broken, but if new software
>>breaks it, then the old DOS is broken, not the new program. Were it
>>the other way around, we would still be using dBASE II, Perfect Writer
>>and Perfect Calc on CP/M machines, or worse yet, TRS DOS.
>
>>SoapBox: Off
>
>
>>Cheers!
>>Steve

[My .sig deleted]

>I don't think that's so good an attitude - some people are forced into using
>the dos they have. Compromize is the name of the game. If the user has a 
>low numbered Dos, they have to make a couple of sacrifices for you (just 
>don't forget to mention that in the documentation). The files must be:
>1. In the current directory
>2. In the root of the current drive (easiest for floppy users)
>3. Defined in an environment variable.
>
>You could also check the path. 
>None of this is particularly difficult to do:
>Check the dos version
>if ver < 3.1 /* or something */
>check for environment variable
>if not found
>check for file in current directory
>if not found
>check for file in root
>if not found, exit gracefully.
>
>Don't forget to tell the user he shouldn't rename the file ( dos <)
>
>So - tell me why you shouldn't take these simple steps to make all potential
>users happy, and I'll tell you, or rather they'll tell you what you can do
>with your software. (Irony alert!)

All of the software I write for work requires file sharing, so if you run
DOS <3.1 it's a moot point. It cannot be done. Most of the rest of the
software I write uses DOS functions and services not available in <3.0

I try and maintain compatibility with at least 1 major revision behind the
current. From a professional aspect, I can't support older DOS versions,
because *My Support* ends at the previous versions of DOS. (Just try and
call MS and ask for support for DOS 2).

Take the argument from the other side, and I can give you a number of
reasons to continue to run DOS 1.1 (Which I still have a copy of somewhere)
It's a tiny OS, and doesn't have the same kind of overhead ver >= 2 has,
as well as having a simpler disk structure.

Seriously, though, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask users to run an
operating system that's 5 or less years old. Additionally, I have not
encountered anyone who has complained of anything I have written not running
because of the DOS version.

For me, the bottom line is, how much will it cost me to maintain compatibility
with DOS 2, versus how much it will gain me to do so. The apparent cost is
time, the apparent benefit, for me, is none. This may be different for
other programmers, and more power to them, but for me, it's a non-issue.

Cheers!
Steve


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA:        1:143/105.0, 
                 co moderator for comp.binaries.os2
 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc
 Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null
 The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------