Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa From: dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: *\\"LDA\\" ok? Message-ID: <9042@brl-adm.ARPA> Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 10:09:38 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-adm.9042 Posted: Fri Aug 28 10:09:38 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 00:42:09 EDT Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA Lines: 24 From: Ray Butterworth >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.