Re: [AD] 4.2.0 release failed build on VC 2005

[aj <aj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Evert Glebbeek wrote:

> On Saturday 31 December 2005 05:11, aj wrote:
>  
>
> > it might be time to start considering dropping MSVC6, it is buggy, old, 
> > and there are better alternatives.
> >    
>
> I agree, but it's also widely used. And as Thomas F said, none of the MSVC 
> versions supports C99 properly, so what does dropping MSVC6 buy us in that 
> case?

Windows seems to be an exception from common sense, why ?

Win98 is still supported, an OS that is, as of tommorow, 8 years old...  
Do you expect the same of linux?   Would you limit the advancement of  
allegro because someone wanted to run a 8 year old linux distro, that 
had some quirky behaviour ?

Msvc6 is old, now very old.. its still being supported because someone 
wants to use an old,old compiler.  If someone had problems with allegro 
and they were using GCC from the same era as msvc6, would you simply say 
ok, lets limit allegro to only being able to use old-gcc features simply 
to support an age old gcc-ism...  somehow i think the first response 
will be "what version of gcc are you running, you should upgrade to 3.x.x"

This isn't the same argument for dropping DOS support, DOS is a seperate 
platform, this isn't an argument about platform, its about compiler support.

>>what does dropping MSVC6 buy us in that case?

i think it buys us the ability to spend limited developer time on 
developping forward, instead of backward.
i think it buys us the freedom to add features in v7 and v8 that are not 
available in v6... closer to C99 support.
i think it buys us a better allegro, a more stable allegro, a faster, 
feature richer allegro.
i think it buys us another minute before we open the door; death has 
already rang the bell several times, he's waiting.


aj.