A shell script is something very different from a markdown editing app with plugins, file synchronisation, multi-platform support, and many more moving parts. And even a 20 year old shell script is probably going to fare pretty poorly.
Do you remember what the most common processor was in 2005? A Pentium 4, or a Celeron maybe. That was when 64 bit operating systems just became a thing. I’d really like to see you getting a version of, say. OpenSSL from 2005 to compile on modern hardware…
So what? Maybe read the thread that you're responding to.
"And even a 20 year old shell script is probably going to fare pretty poorly."
You can't just say "my sweeping assertion is probably right". I have shell scripts that are more than 20 years old that still run. And I have C89 programs that still compile and run.
"I’d really like to see you getting a version of, say. OpenSSL from 2005 to compile on modern hardware…"
This is a ridiculous disingenuous strawman. I can't get my FORTRAN II programs that I wrote in 1965 to run, but that has nothing to do with the original claim that I responded to, which was a sweeping generalization that a SINGLE counterexample refutes.
A shell script is something very different from a markdown editing app with plugins, file synchronisation, multi-platform support, and many more moving parts. And even a 20 year old shell script is probably going to fare pretty poorly.
Do you remember what the most common processor was in 2005? A Pentium 4, or a Celeron maybe. That was when 64 bit operating systems just became a thing. I’d really like to see you getting a version of, say. OpenSSL from 2005 to compile on modern hardware…
"A shell script is something very different"
So what? Maybe read the thread that you're responding to.
"And even a 20 year old shell script is probably going to fare pretty poorly."
You can't just say "my sweeping assertion is probably right". I have shell scripts that are more than 20 years old that still run. And I have C89 programs that still compile and run.
"I’d really like to see you getting a version of, say. OpenSSL from 2005 to compile on modern hardware…"
This is a ridiculous disingenuous strawman. I can't get my FORTRAN II programs that I wrote in 1965 to run, but that has nothing to do with the original claim that I responded to, which was a sweeping generalization that a SINGLE counterexample refutes.
Over and out.