I really appreciate this approach. It actually takes, in my humble opinion, much more discipline (and requires checking ego at the door) to implement this idea, compared to the “my code just throws exceptions or a 400 Bad Request anytime you aren’t following the most recent revision of our API” mindset. I work on Web apps which are much closer to that second approach usually, but if I were working on a platform (NT) which was 30 years old and will live another 30 years in all likelihood, you 100% have to take the approaches Raymond Chen is explaining.
“We’ve decided software that operates your 100 ten-million-dollar-each CNC machines is ‘shitty,’ so buy new equipment so you can get Windows 11” isn’t going to fly, it would get the whole company laughed out of the room.
Especially because what is allegedly making them shitty would just be someone’s failure to predict some minor detail about the future of the platform. APIs do have to change, and the creative part is thinking of how they can be safely rendered inoperable without damaging anything that didn’t predict that removal. Sure, you can’t print, but that’s in this example a deliberate design decision of the platform, probably for good reasons.
“We’ve decided software that operates your 100 ten-million-dollar-each CNC machines is ‘shitty,’ so buy new equipment so you can get Windows 11” isn’t going to fly, it would get the whole company laughed out of the room.
Especially because what is allegedly making them shitty would just be someone’s failure to predict some minor detail about the future of the platform. APIs do have to change, and the creative part is thinking of how they can be safely rendered inoperable without damaging anything that didn’t predict that removal. Sure, you can’t print, but that’s in this example a deliberate design decision of the platform, probably for good reasons.