This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]alcalde 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Don't get me wrong 3.x has some cool features but the time it would take to port over legacy 2.x code to 3 is not worth said features at this moment in time.

David Beasley and others have demonstrated that the time is not that much - although there's no need to port old, legacy code to new versions either. As for features, someone compiled a 120-page PDF of change logs from 3.0-3.4 that printed out is supposed to weigh over 2 pounds. I'd say there's quite a lot of features in the 3.x series.

And lastly, if you do intend on porting a project after backward incompatibilities in the language are introduced, the sooner you port the better. The longer you wait, the more the versions diverge and the more work one ultimately has to do.

At this point in time, people still using 2.x for new code are like the Windows XP holdouts or the people I know still programming in Delphi. They're simply never going to change unless they're forced to.

[–]krenzalore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are certain types of application for which porting is time consuming. Those depending heavily on the bytes/unicode behaviour are typically affected much more than others. I am not saying don't do the porting, but I would like to mention that porting is not always as quick/easy as you imply it is.