Hacker News
points by kidel001 3 days ago | 0 comments
I like that we are amazed by this. And yet all of my books from 34 years ago open up just fine (without cheating, no book opening emulator required!). I can even open a book on my shelf from 1896 without emulation. Not trying to troll too hard but I do think it is shocking how accustomed we've gotten to zero backwards compatibility in the world of software.
[–] Clamchop 2 days ago
The software analogies to books (documents of various types like PDF, HTML) don't have pathological obsolescence problems, either. Binary executable code is such a different animal that the comparison isn't instructive at all, or else I suppose you would also complain that you can't fit modern Ford parts onto a Model T because you can still read old books?
[–] toast0 2 days ago
> The software analogies to books (documents of various types like PDF, HTML) don't have pathological obsolescence problems, either.

It kind of depends on the document format. PDF tends to display well over time (but there can be issues with complex documents and/or missing fonts), spreadsheets and word processor files are likely to be openable, but they may not display as they originally did. HTML is likely to look rather different than it did when written, but it'll probably be legible.

[–] anthonypasq 3 days ago
a better example would be whether you could put a train from 1845 on a modern track, or fire a musketball from an M16
[–] ggreer 3 days ago
I think the oldest cartridge that would still work in a modern firearm would be .22 Short, which is from 1857.[1] It was developed into .22 Long, which was developed into .22 Long Rifle, which new firearms are still chambered in today. It wouldn't cycle a semi-auto though. Another contender would be .38 Long Colt, which is from 1875 and will work in firearms chambered in .38 Special or .357 Magnum.

The main causes of incompatibility were the transition from ball-and-powder to rimfire cartridges, then the transition from rimfire to centerfire. It's surprising how little firearms have changed in the past century. 9mm Parabellum is 125 years old. The Browning short recoil action (used by most handguns today) is over a century old.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_short

[–] toyg 3 days ago
> It's surprising how little firearms have changed in the past century.

Isn't that a function of constraints in the deployment model, which are fundamentally unchanged? A soldier needs <something> with him to hit enemies and <something else> to reload it - and the simpler the better, to facilitate difficult deployments and keep costs down. I mean, the venerable Kalashnikov is still around, despite its well-known shortcomings...

I guess we would see major developments only if we discovered/engineered materials that can perform the function in a significantly better way.

[–] ggreer 2 days ago
Modern metallurgy does allow for significantly higher chamber pressures, and this has been done in firearms such as the M7 with its 80,000psi .277 Fury.[1] Pistol cartridges can also be made smaller for the same effectiveness (allowing higher capacity in the same form factor), as has been done with .30 Super Carry.[2] But your guess is correct: They don't really catch on because a small improvement in capacity or effectiveness isn't worth changing all the manufacturing and logistics for new cartridges. 5.56mm and 9mm are good enough, and they're cheap due to their large volume of manufacturing. Any replacement would have to be much better to be worth the cost of changing over.

Most improvements have been in things like modularity, sighting systems, and standardization for mounting accessories such as lights and laser aiming modules. Better metallurgy does mean that modern firearms tend to last longer than older ones, but even a firearm from WWI can fire thousands of rounds before the bore erodes enough to hurt accuracy. I doubt we'll see any significant change in small arms unless something revolutionary comes along, such as portable energy weapons or mass drivers.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.277_Fury

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Super_Carry

[–] jeroenhd 3 days ago
If you live in a country or region where the gauge didn't change, you can put a 1845 train on a modern track just fine. If the gauge did change, you'll need a train from another country. Standard Gauge was first applied in 1825 after all.
[–] fredoralive 3 days ago
Although on modern railways whilst the locomotive might fit, the train might not be allowed to operate in normal mainline traffic or need modifications to be considered safe. A steam train on the British main lines needs to be retrofitted with an alphabet soup of AWS, TPWS and GSM-R, and the glacial rollout of ERTMS and in cab signalling will mean figuring out how to add a HMI display to a steam engine cab.
[–] jeroenhd 3 days ago
And Apple might find software that doesn't get their magical signature to be unsafe and insecure, but the old executables will run if you ignore all those constraints.
[–] Barrin92 3 days ago
>whether you could put a train from 1845 on a modern track

you can do that, in fact I know that Austria still has a mid 19th century train in regular operation (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_alt_23)

if you're looking for commuter trains a lot of early 20th century ones still operate around the world.

[–] delta_p_delta_x 3 days ago
> whether you could put a train from 1845 on a modern track

This quite literally happens all the time in the UK. There are heritage railways, and steam rolling stock regularly shows up on various routes as part of heritage rides.

On the other hand, I ride almost daily on a track bed that was laid almost 180 years ago, and through tunnels and on viaducts that are equally as old. The rails, sleepers, signals, and rolling stock have all changed, no doubt, but the base infrastructure is old hat.

The oldest bits of the London Underground are from 1863. The tunnels are exactly the same, the stations and stairways, and even some of the sign boards completely unchanged from then.

Railways are the epitome of forever infrastructure.

[–] wildzzz 3 days ago
Many militaries are still buying rifles that chamber a cartridge introduced in 1891 (7.62x54mmR). I'd argue a cartridge initially developed for a long bolt action rifle (Mosin-Nagant) that can now be fired out of a variant of a AK-patten select-fire bull-pup (Vepr) fits the analogy.
[–] ssenssei 3 days ago
you just put out the bat signal for two types of geeks & nerds
[–] Cthulhu_ 3 days ago
Why train when you can just walk? (yeah this a snarky remark to the grandparent comment)
[–] eahhn 3 days ago
I guess this is one of those proverbial “I had to create an account to comment” messages:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

[–] stkdump 3 days ago
I think the point made here is that the application runs as if it were a modern application, even though the OS is completely unrecognizable when compared to the OS it was written for. There are other ways to run old applications on modern hardware with modern OSs, which the author would consider cheating for the purpose of TFA. Heck, I can run ancient DOS and gaming console applications on my phone if I wanted to.
[–] tgv 2 days ago
Veering off a bit more: books written in 1896 may not be readable any longer. Not because the ink faded, or the paper got stuck, but because the spelling and vocabulary changed, or the type font has been relegated to the dust bin (think Fraktur).
[–] andai 3 days ago
https://xkcd.com/1909/

It is amazing, though. Wintel is basically a Matryoshka doll (Russian nesting dolls), where each version contains all the previous versions. (Just look at how a PC boots up!)

The dedication to compatibility is commendable, and you don't really see it on the other OS's. On that note, this is one of my favorite articles:

Win32 is the only stable ABI on Linux

https://blog.hiler.eu/win32-the-only-stable-abi/

I think that's very funny. Speaking of which, EasyToon also runs in WINE, of course :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50250809

[–] eviks 3 days ago
Give it a few centuries of evolution and maybe we'll get there