New versions breaking extensions, etc.

[Robin Becker]

Cameron Laird wrote:
.....
> 			.
> Part of the trick is that it demands deep understanding
> to detect the antisynergies that arise from the interac-
> tions of the DLL, registry, and filesystem schemes.  I
> know it was only this year that I realized the whole
> installation-requires-reboot absurdity is a consequence
> of DLL (mis-)design.
> 
> That's judgmental of me.  What I'm saying is *I* wouldn't
> do an OS that way.  It's certain, though, that I'll never
> extract as much consumer surplus as Microsoft has, so my
> evaluations should count for little.

what seems strange is that although the OS hasn't changed we need a 
whole new framework just because the compiler underwent a version change.

That would not happen in a *nix style OS because the framework is the 
OS. In the M$ world the $ value of causing reams of people to get the 
new compiler outways any sense of what would be a decent approach to OS 
design etc.

It's sad that people who are otherwise sensible about opensource seem to 
be a bit silly about the poisoned apples. There was no rational reason 
for me to upgrade to VC 7.x, but now I'm forced to by my preferred language.
-- 
Robin Becker