2013/8/19 Jeff Burcher <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I apologize if this is off topic, but this raises a question for me. Why > can't new versions be backwards compatible? Is it really that difficult to > accomplish? This has been a complaint of mine for years with Windows ever > since we went from 95 to 98. I am an AS400 programmer and I have legacy > programs written in RPG II, which died 20 years ago, and they still run > fine > on the newest version of AS400 or iSeries or Power System or whatever the > heck it is called now. I also have PHP scripts that are many years old that > work just fine the way they are, if a new version doesn't come along and > make me have to reprogram for no reason just because it can't handle older > code. Really, have Do loops and data calls changed that much over the > years? > I mean, all you do is set a condition, use a variable key field, and voila, > data is pulled and processed, no big deal. Yeah, you can get fancy with it, > but the core basics are still the same. I have been programming for over 35 > years and like to think that once a program is built it should run forever. > Do we just accept that we have to rewrite every program we ever wrote every > time a new version comes out? A little extreme, but you get my point. > Comments? Suggestions? > My 2 cent: I hadn't any major issues with BC since 5.3 and from 5.2 it required a little bit to do, but was solveable (means: It wasn't complicated, but only an afternoon time to invest). Caine complaints from time to time his codebase here. That is nothing new and I am unsure how representative his statements are. Regards, Sebastian > > (I am also the kind of guy who thinks quality made hand tools from the > 1800s > are superior to many purchased today at Lowes or Home Depot.) > > Thanks, > > Jeff Burcher - IT Dept > Allred Metal Stamping Works > "Making Metal Parts since 1946." > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lester Caine [mailto:lester@xxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:24 AM > > To: php-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: how old is this version of PHP? > > > > Larry Garfield wrote: > > > 5.2.9 was released in February of 2009. 5.2 is completely retired and > > > out of support. 5.3 is on security-only life-support. 5.4 is the > legacy stable > > release. > > > > > > Yes, 5.2.9 IS that old. :-) Really, get a host that has made it into > > > this decade. (GoDaddy apparently doesn't meet that qualification.) > > > You're doing clients a disservice by allowing them to run such an > > > ancient and unsupported version. > > > > While the statements are correct, many users are not in a position to > move > > from their currently working systems to even 5.3 let alone 5.4. There is > still a > > lot of legacy code that unless a few more people step up and help bring > it > > forward for the many - non programming - users who are stuck with legacy > > applications, they will remain requiring 5.2 to run. ISPs got caught out > when > > they arbitrarily moved accounts forward, and GoDaddy have even been > > caught by that, so maintaining a LTS version of PHP5.2 is the lesser evil > ... > > Windows 2000 is supposed to be dead, but *I* still have sites reliant on > it > > because the code and hardware is unsupported in even XP. Saying > > something is dead only works if there is an affordable way of moving > forward > > ;) > > > > -- > > Lester Caine - G8HFL > > ----------------------------- > > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact > > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - > > http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - > > http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - > http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk > > > > -- > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: > > http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- github.com/KingCrunch
