Question The backward compatibility debate

[ar81]

I was wondering about the concept of backward compatibility.
Gamer wisdom says "never upgrade something that works".
When you update and no backward compatibility is present, you lose something.

If it is Orbiter you lose some addons.

In the case of the newly compiled Orbiter version that we might see, we rely on a new compiler for compatibility. But some other files like old PLTEX files and old Orbiter formats are lost. Could it be possible to make an import utility to make them up to date.

When I made Surface Base Wizard I tried to support older files. Could it be possible to do that with other files like PLTEX so we may use and update older addons?

 

[Urwumpe]

Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly.

You can't keep compatibility with old stuff all the time, because it will limit you. Also: For what are you keeping it compatible? Basically just for one thing: For running add-ons which even the author does not care about. They are old, have bugs which nobody fixed for years, and are technically inferior.

For keeping Orbiter compatible with add-ons from 2003, you would limit newer add-ons. Which I see bad. The API was never meant to be constant over decades. It was developed with orbiter, and martins would sure today program many parts of the SDK completely different, than he did in the beginning.

And why should PLTEX support old formats? That is stupid. Just download an old orbiter SDK package and use the old version of the tool, if you need to support old orbiter versions.

Who needs to make add-ons for Orbiter 2003, you can download the files from Orbithangar... very hard task, the selection of the destination folder. Of course you might soon no longer be source compatible with the current version of the API.

And gamer wisdom? I have yet to see a wise gamer. You misquote the classic "Never change a running system", which is true, if you use a very strict version of "running". As long as your system is fullfilling all requirements, you don't change it. If the requirements change and your system no longer fullfills them, instead of fixing the requirements, you need to fix your system.

 

[simonpro]

Gamer wisdom says "never upgrade something that works".

So why aren't gamers only playing Pacman? That worked.

 

[Urwumpe]

So why aren't gamers only playing Pacman? That worked.

Or why do gamers need new multicore GPUs, with separate nuclear power supply and hybrid cooling towers attached to a glycol loop?

A good old Hercules card did it well for FS4.

 

[Artlav]

Hey, it takes a week to complete a universe-scale project without backwards compatibility.
With it, oh so much things have to be considered.

It would have been a rather good idea to set a revised API and formats for this version, considering the plethora of new features, and then drop the current API on the post-09 release.

That way, many old add-ons will work for now, and new ones will get some nice new features to use.


And, for nuclear-powered GPU's, you obviously never seen a AMD Firestream cluster supercomputer.

 

[Usonian]

For what are you keeping it compatible? Basically just for one thing: For running add-ons which even the author does not care about.

I agree. When the next release of Orbiter comes out it would be nice to just sit back and let Martin handle it. But I know I will have to look over my stable of addons and decide which are worth updating and which are not. Older versions of Orbiter are still available on Orbithangar to run obsolescent add-ons (if anyone wants to).

Martin is doing this for fun, and no body's livelihood depends on this sofware, so why expect him to go to any extra trouble? It's kind of amazing that he is still working on it and making improvements.

 

[ar81]

I was thinking about MFDs like Rendezvous MFD and the good old Outer planets addon mostly.

An author could die, marry, have children, overworked by world crisis, lost in space... I can see many reasons why a good addon may be discontinued that do not involve lack of interest.

I just wondered what backward compatibility implied.
It is interesting to see your views, though.

 

[Urwumpe]

An author could die, marry, have children, overworked by world crisis, lost in space... I can see many reasons why a good addon may be discontinued that do not involve lack of interest.

Yes, and nobody else can do the add-on or a better one. :rofl:

 

[RisingFury]

Progress usually goes into the future, not into the past. There is absolutely no point in keeping compatibility with old addons. If there really is an old addon that you want to see in the current/next release, it's probably less effort to redo the addon.