Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 20:33:45 +0300
On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 20:19, Brian Bi via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ABI breaks certainly have costs, but not breaking ABI also has costs, and it appears to many people, both within and outside of WG21, that the costs of breaking ABI are overestimated, and the costs of not breaking ABI are underestimated.
Appears? Based on what? I could quantify that ABI break cost to a
dollar precision for various companies if I really had to (because
we've done it accidentally, by packaging with a platform that had a
newer GLIBC that results in packages that don't work on systems
with an older GLIBC, due to an.. *drumroll* ..ABI incompatibility).
What is this disagreeing appearance based on? Hot air?
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ABI breaks certainly have costs, but not breaking ABI also has costs, and it appears to many people, both within and outside of WG21, that the costs of breaking ABI are overestimated, and the costs of not breaking ABI are underestimated.
Appears? Based on what? I could quantify that ABI break cost to a
dollar precision for various companies if I really had to (because
we've done it accidentally, by packaging with a platform that had a
newer GLIBC that results in packages that don't work on systems
with an older GLIBC, due to an.. *drumroll* ..ABI incompatibility).
What is this disagreeing appearance based on? Hot air?
Received on 2023-09-04 17:33:58