Gerrit wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009 schrieb James Richard Tyrer:
>> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>>> This is no more a "design error" than not being able to get full
>>> quality from resampling a 22kHz sound to 44kHz.
>>>
>> I fail to see what re sampling has to do with backward
>> compatibility.
>>
>> Failure to consider backward compatibility is, by definition, a
>> design error.
>>
>
> But if you make _everything_ backward compatible, the software just
> gets bigger and bigger and will have too many bugs. Also, it can
> severely hinder new design concepts etc.
>
I believe that I said that a designer should consider it. The other
considerations you list are valid points in an evaluation.
In the case of the color scheme, IMHO, backward compatibility would have
been easy to achieve. If fact, it may exist.
While I still don't get MW's point, going from 22kHz to 44kHz is
backward compatible since old 22kHz files can be easily oversampled to
44kHz. OTOH, going to 48kHz would compromise backward comparability
since oversampling would not be as easy -- ratio is 11:24 rather than 1:2.
> Imho, a fresh start is sometimes necessary.
Yes, I would agree with that. This would be especially true when the
cost of backward compatibility is too large.
> Backward compatibility is sometimes really a pain in the ass.
>
Lack of it can also be a large pain.
--
James Tyrer
Linux (mostly) From Scratch
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
