RE: Release incompatibility (was HTTP 500)

>From: Reeve Fritchman [mailto:reeve@ltl400.com]
>100% compatibility with old/obsolete/unsupported releases?

Reeve,

I've got to disagree here. I'll accept that argument when it is raised
against questions like "Why can't I move free-form rpg compiled programs to
V4R2?" or "I used a API introduced in V5R1, will IBM PTF that API back to
V4R5?" But this is a different case.

In this case IBM made already compiled code break. I don't view that as
backward compatibility, but rather forward compatibility. It's about the
same as IBM coming along and saying, "CPF0864 has been replaced by CPF97F4,
ok?" Imagine how much stuff would break then.

Backward compatibility is something to strive for, but not at the expense of
progress. However, forward compatibility is a requirement for any modern
business system. Hell, even Microsoft knows enough to make a new API when a
change to an old one would break existing code, just look at all the xxx and
xxxEx APIs. (eg. ShutdownWindows and ShutdownWindowsEx)

-Walden

------------
Walden H Leverich III
President
Tech Software
(516)627-3800 x11
WaldenL@TechSoftInc.com
http://www.TechSoftInc.com