Comment by IshKebab
6 months ago
I think at least Go and Java have as good backwards compatibility as C++.
Most languages take backwards compatibility very seriously. It was quite a surprise to me when Python broke so much code with the 3.12 release. I think it's the exception.
I don't know about go, but java is pathetic. I have 30 years old c++ programs that work just fine.
However, an application that I had written to be backward compatible with java 1.4, 15 years ago, cannot be compiled today. And I had to make major changes to have it run on anything past java 8, ~10 years ago, I believe.
Compared to C++ (or even Erlang), Go is pretty bad.
$DAYJOB got burned badly twice on breaking Go behavioral changes delivered in non-major versions, so management created a group to carefully review Go releases and approve them for use.
All too often, Google's justification for breaking things is "Well, we checked the code in Google, and publicly available on Github, and this change wouldn't affect TOO many people, so we're doing it because it's convenient for us.".
> delivered in non-major versions
Can you clarify these 2 changes please? Cannot recall anything similar
3 replies →
As long as you are lucky enough to not have used any stuff dropped in C++14, C++17, C++20 and C++23.
Exception especifications, gets, GC, string ABI,...
Java has had shit backwards compatibility for as long as I have had to deal with it. Maybe it's better now, but I have not forgotten the days of "you have to use exactly Java 1.4.15 or this app won't work"... with four different apps that each need their own different version of the JRE or they break. The only thing that finally made Java apps tolerable to support was the rise of app virtualization solutions. Before that, it was a nightmare and Java was justly known as "the devil's software" to everyone who had to support it.
That was probably 1.4.2_15, because 1.4.15 did not exist. What you describe wasn’t a Java source or binary compatibility problem, it was a shipping problem and it did exist in C++ world too (and still exists - sharing runtime dependencies is hard). I remember those days too. Java 5 was released 20 years ago, so you describe some really ancient stuff.
Today we don’t have those limits on HDD space and can simply ship an embedded copy of JRE with the desktop app. In server environments I doubt anyone is reusing JRE between apps at all.
While "Well, just bundle in a copy of the whole-ass JRE" makes packaging Java software easier, it's still true that Java's backwards-compatibility is often really bad.
> ...sharing runtime dependencies [in C or C++] is hard...
Is it? The "foo.so foo.1.so foo.1.2.3.so" mechanism works really well, for libraries whose devs that are capable of failing to ship backwards-incompatible changes in patch versions, and ABI-breaking changes in minor versions.
6 replies →