6 ms·
> this basically amounts to never deprecating anything at all yeah, though from the perspective of a sysadmin I suspect this is what they would prefer
by bin_bash 3y ago
> this basically amounts to never deprecating anything at all
yeah, though from the perspective of a sysadmin I suspect this is what they would prefer
- deredede 3y agoTo be fair, I suspect many developers would also prefer their dependencies never deprecating anything either.
- izacus 3y agoYep, and they'd also prefer to never maintain anything ever and constantly change their own APIs on a daily basis.
- hotpotamus 3y agoI was about to quote the same thing and say "yes, please". If the plan is to replace what is being deprecated with something truly better, then by all means, let's do it. But if it's more about resume padding by re-writing in the latest hot language, then I'd just as soon skip it. Of course, telling the difference is never so simple.
- JdeBP 3y agoThe reason that this has come up again was a little more complex. It wasn't resume padding, and it wasn't writing in an alternative language. It was about deprecating and then removing long standing Unix command names, with histories back at least as far as the middle/early 1980s, simply because they aren't now in the Single Unix Specification. They were in the SVID.