Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW

Re: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part VI): Architecture

by tilly (Archbishop)
on Jan 23, 2011 at 10:37 UTC ( #883760=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part VI): Architecture

Corrections and useful facts for you.

Windows NT was not a rewrite of Windows 95. In fact it was released in 1993, well before Windows 95 got released.

It is unfair to say that Python 3 has adoption problems. In fact the rate of adoption is slightly ahead of what was initially expected.

There are a lot more successful rewrites you can add to the list. For instance Perl 5 is a rewrite of Perl 4, vim is a rewrite of vi, and less is a rewrite of more.

  • Comment on Re: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part VI): Architecture

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part VI): Architecture (Python 3)
by eyepopslikeamosquito (Bishop) on Jan 23, 2011 at 11:58 UTC

    Re Windows 95, thanks for the correction, I'll update the root node. It seems that Windows NT was a rewrite of Windows 3 and that Windows 95 was derived from the Windows 3 code base.

    Python 3: I only claimed it was meeting "substantial resistance". Maybe that's unfair, depending on your interpretation of "substantial", but it's certainly meeting some resistance based on random web chatter on the subject. Well, I'm a Python user and I'm resisting it. ;-) My personal opinion is that breaking backward compatibility was unwarranted for a release with relatively modest improvements. Many businesses with large investments in Python 2.x code will resist Python 3 indefinitely because upgrading will prove too risky and/or too expensive.

    Update: Even a company as wealthy as Google, as of 2017, are still heavily using Python 2. This is hardly surprising. Where is the ROI on spending millions of dollars rewriting millions of lines of already working code, without adding any customer value, while being almost guaranteed to suffer numerous breakages to critical business systems? You also pay an Opportunity cost. Curiously, I see some of Google's legacy Python 2 systems are being rewritten in Go perhaps because at least there is some perceived customer value (faster performance) in a Go rewrite. For smaller less wealthy companies, rewriting millions of lines of working Python 2 code in Python 3 could well put them out of business. Of course, if you don't have much Python 2 code, switching to Python 3 is a no brainer. Further update: I see Jython is still Python 2 in 2020 and IronPython3 unfinished. At least Perl doesn't have to worry about updating Java and CLR versions of the language. :)

    See also:

      It seems that Windows NT was a rewrite of Windows 3

      Absolutely not. Windows NT was an entirely separate, new development of 32-bit code. Ie the Win32 API.

      Win32s was a thunked win32 emulation retrofitted to the 16-bit Windows 3.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        Yes I knew that, so maybe I'm using the term "rewrite" imprecisely. To me, it qualifies as a rewrite because Microsoft chose not to adapt the existing Windows 3/95/98 code base for future Windows versions (e.g. Windows XP, Windows Vista) but rather to write a new code base from scratch. How about: Windows NT was a rewrite of the Windows operating system?

        If NT was a re-write of anything, it was a re-write of VMS. ;-)

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://883760]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (6)
As of 2022-08-08 13:38 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found