From: already5chosen@yahoo.com   
      
   On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 20:54:23 GMT   
   MitchAlsup  wrote:   
      
   > George Neuner  posted:   
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Hope the attributions are correct.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 22:31:32 GMT, MitchAlsup   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > >   
   > > >Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=  posted:   
   > > >   
   > > >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 05:55:40 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   > > >>   
   > >  :   
   > > >> > In any case, even with these languages there are still   
   > > >> > software projects that fail, miss their deadlines and have   
   > > >> > overrun their budget ...   
   > > >   
   > > >A lot of these projects were unnecessary. Once someone figured out   
   > > >how to make the (17 kinds of) hammers one needs, there it little   
   > > >need to make a new hammer architecture.   
   > > >   
   > > >Windows could have stopped at W7, and many MANY people would have   
   > > >been happier... The mouse was more precise in W7 than in W8 ...   
   > > >With a little upgrade for new PCIe architecture along the way   
   > > >rather than redesigning whole kit and caboodle for tablets and   
   > > >phones which did not work BTW...   
   > > >   
   > > >Office application work COULD have STOPPED in 2003, eXcel in 1998,   
   > > >... and few people would have cared. Many SW projects are driven   
   > > >not by demand for the product, but pushed by companies to make   
   > > >already satisfied users have to upgrade.   
   > > >   
   > > >Those programmers could have transitioned to new SW projects   
   > > >rather than redesigning the same old thing 8 more times. Presto,   
   > > >there is now enough well trained SW engineers to tackle the undone   
   > > >SW backlog.   
   > >   
   > > The problem is that decades of "New & Improved" consumer products   
   > > have conditioned the public to expect innovation (at minimum new   
   > > packaging and/or advertising) every so often.   
   > >   
   > > Bringing it back to computers: consider that a FOSS library which   
   > > hasn't seen an update for 2 years likely would be passed over by   
   > > many current developers due to concern that the project has been   
   > > abandoned. That perception likely would not change even if the   
   > > author(s) responded to inquiries, the library was suitable "as is"   
   > > for the intended use, and the lack of recent updates can be   
   > > explained entirely by a lack of new bug reports.   
   >   
   > LAPAC has not been updated in decades, yet is as relevant today as   
   > the first day it was available.   
   >   
      
   It is possible that LAPAC API was not updated in decades, although I'd   
   expect that even at API level there were at least small additions, if   
   not changes. But if you are right that LAPAC implementation was not   
   updated in decade than you could be sure that it is either not used by   
   anybody or used by very few people.   
      
   Personally, when I need LAPAC-like functionality then I tend to use   
   BLAS routines either from Intel MKL or from OpenBLAS. Both libraries   
   are not just updated, but more like permanently re-written.   
   I'm pretty sure that the same applies to Apple's implementations   
   of BLAS and LAPAC.   
   And, of course, it apply GPGPU implementation both from NV and from AMD   
   and more recently from Intel as well.   
      
   > Most Floating Point Libraries are in a similar position. They were   
   > updated after IEEE 754 became widespread and are as good today as   
   > ever.   
   >   
   > {FF1, Tomography, CFD, FEM} have needed no real changes in decades.   
   >   
   > Sometimes, Software is "done". You may add things to the package   
   > {like a new crescent wrench} but the old hammer works just as well   
   > today as 30 years ago when you bought it.   
   >   
      
   No, old hammer does not work well. Unless you consider delivering   
   5-10% of possible performance as "working well".   
      
   > > Why take a chance?   
   >   
   > On the last day of SW support for W10--they (THEY) updated several   
   > things I WANT BACK THE WAY THEY WERE THE DAY BEFORE !!!!!   
   >   
   > To the SW vendor, they want to be able to update their SW any time   
   > they want. Yet, the application user wants the same bugs to remain   
   > constant over the duration of the WHOLE FRIGGEN project--because   
   > once you found them and figured a way around them, you don't want   
   > them to reappear somewhere else !!!   
   >   
   > >                     There simply _must_ be a similar project   
   > > somewhere else that still is actively under development.  Even if   
   > > it's buggy and unfinished, at least someone is working on it.   
   >   
   > I understand--but this bites more often than the conservative   
   > approach.   
   > > YMMV but, as a software developer myself, this attitude makes me   
   > > sick. 8-(   
   >   
   > I was in a 3-year project where we had to forgo upgrading from SunOS   
   > to Solaris because the SW license model changes would have put us out   
   > of business before project completion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)