From: blockedofcourse@foo.invalid   
      
   On 2/1/2026 2:11 PM, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   >> I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.  Possibly someone else did but I don't   
   >> recall that either.  In fact F77 tried hard to stay compatible with F66 and   
   >> the few incompatibilities were well documented and had good rationales.   
   >   
   > In 1990 I led a project with Shell. All calculations were still required to   
   > use FORTRAN IV. Because there was substantial graphics involved we got   
   > dispensation to use c on VMS. (Using transputers, also occam was allowed.)   
   > Compatibility was a priority.   
      
   In software, compatibility is the bane of good design.  Just because   
   something made sense for a particular project, doesn't mean it   
   makes sense for YOUR project.   
      
   Or, if it is even "best practices" any longer.   
      
   I chuckle when I think of how many devices using Linux kernels   
   are carrying the cost of file system support when they likely   
   never would have put "support for a filesystem" on their list   
   of requirements.   
      
   And, when the whole notion of a global namespace actually makes   
   their design LESS secure/robust!   
      
   (And ACLs?  etc.   Really??  All that extra, UNNEEDED code that   
   just makes your product buggier and more bloated...)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)