●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bybackslashdot ( 95548 ) writes:
They are going to do this in an automated way, meaning the bugs will be copied too as "features".
bybjoast ( 1310293 ) writes:
Let's hope so. In old code bases you can't always just fix every bug because many bugs have through use and abuse evolved to be considered part of the contract. An AI assisted rewrite that did not migrate known bugs would likely be a grand failure.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymadbrain ( 11432 ) writes:
APIs are often buggy. Sometimes, you really need to use them for your project. If you choose not to call those APIs, and there is no suitable replacement, your project will also not get done. You may lose your job as well as a result. There is no good choice.
Good luck getting the OS fixed if Microsoft is the vendor. And if they do, they may break many other apps that are distributed in binary form, that had to work around the API bugs previously.
Oftentimes, when binary compatibility is a concern, the compro
bytoutankh ( 1544253 ) writes:
You are right but also not addressing GP's concern. The statement is not "don't use broken APIs" but "don't rely on incorrect or undocumented behaviour". Those are two different statements.
Good developers should work around incorrect or undocumented behaviour rather than rely on it. Especially if they want to increase the chances of their code still working in the future.
bymadbrain ( 11432 ) writes:
My response was exactly on point. The context is clear from the GP. The AC is just a troll, as they usually are. I wasted my time taking the bait.
byAvitarX ( 172628 ) writes:
It's a very old codebase.
They probably are retired.
But MS was all about using undocumented shot for the purpose of stating ahead of their competition that was stuck with documented features.
byArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) writes:
They probably are retired.
This is actually one argument Google made for deprecating C++ in favor of Rust. C++ tends to be that if somebody other than the original maintainer makes changes, they can really break shit in totally unexpected ways without anybody realizing it. A major contributor to that is OOP inheritance, which isn't a thing in Rust, and the fact that C++ lacks exhaustive pattern matching (C++ doesn't have pattern matching at all.)
byArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) writes:
That's easy to say if you don't maintain any of that code. Fixing such bugs will often break so many things that it's either just not even worth fixing, or you have to emulate old bugs to avoid breaking old software. Literally every OS on the planet inevitably runs into this issue. Linux has to emulate old bugs in many cases in support of the "never break user space" rule.
https://lwn.net/Articles/96253... [lwn.net]
●nt threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...