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: Evolution, revolution & rebirth
Message-ID: <9156@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 3-Sep-87 15:35:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.9156
Posted: Thu Sep  3 15:35:58 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 11:19:15 EDT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 51

>In article <9042@brl-adm.ARPA> dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) writes:
>>Maybe if software had a mechanism for dying when it was past its prime
>>we wouldn't have this problem.  [...]
>
>Yeah.  It always appears to me what a *GREAT* idea it will be for files
>to automatically commit suicide when their uses are gone.  We will then
>never run into storage problems.

Okay, I can see this requires explanation.  I know this is a little off
the beaten path for this list, but since the above was posted here I
feel I should be allowed a rebuttal.

What I envision when I think about a such a mechanism is a little more
subtle than "suicide".  The scenario is like this:  When a language's
standard is released, it specifies a date after which source code in
that generation of the language would no longer be compilable(*).  The
standard also specifies that prior to that date, a new standard will
be in place for the next generation of the language and will have been
available long enough to ensure the availability of new compilers in
time to upgrade the old source code.

For example, lets say ANSI subcommittee z4x87j42 produces a standard
for the S language in 1990.  This is the first ANSI standard for S, so
it is referred to as Generation 1.  The standard specifies that a
standard for S language Generation 2 will be available by 2000, and
that after 2005, Generation 1 code will become invalid.

Programs developed under Gen 1 would still be runnable after 2005, but
the source code would not be compilable.  Developers would have plenty
of time to rewrite their code as Gen 2.  No doubt, they would take
advantage of the forced rewrite and incorporate any major changes at
that time.  Of course, there would be no problems with backward
compatibility...

... meanwhile, back in the *real* world ...

Of course it would take a tremendous amount of self control on the
part of the software industry to adhere to such a policy, even if it
would be for the greater good.  Maybe there would have to be laws
prohibiting the compilation of outdated sources...  Radical...


-Dave

(*) While checking the spelling of compilable, which wasn't in my
dictionary, I noticed the origin of the word "compile": it comes from
the Latin word "compilare" which means "to plunder".

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.