From: gneuner2@comcast.net   
      
   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.   
   >   
   >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.   
      
      
   I agree completely!  However, numeric libraries are not what the   
   average developer is looking for.  For every 1 looking for a numerics   
   library, there are 100,000 looking for some kind of web function,   
   editing, data interchange, or database library.   
      
      
   >> 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 !!!!!   
      
   Yeah, that happens too.   
      
      
   >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.   
      
   And that also.  Clearly if the economics of the  changes, you   
   have to re-evaluate using it.   
      
   Company I worked for had a handful of Sparc 5s running Solaris.  We   
   only used them in connection with board level debugger which we needed   
   for developing some embedded projects running VxWorks on 68K VME.  The   
   Sparcs monitored the VME module and allowed replaying system level   
   events to figure out what led to .   
      
   I overheard the manager complaining that we could buy 3-4 top of line   
   Pentium workstations for the cost of each Sparc.  Unfortunately - at   
   that time - the debugger/monitor software didn't run on x86.  A few   
   years later there was an x86 version introduced, but, by that time, we   
   weren't doing anything that needed it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)