Re: Oracle #1? Then why are these still missing...
From: Dirk Bellemans <Dirk.Bellemans_at_skynet.belgium>
Date: 1999/08/12
Message-ID: <7otv3s$bu7$2_at_news1.skynet.be>#1/1
Date: 1999/08/12
Message-ID: <7otv3s$bu7$2_at_news1.skynet.be>#1/1
Gary O'Keefe wrote in message <37a046eb.13896220_at_news.hydro.co.uk>...
>
>Sometimes you just have to break backwards-compatibility. It pisses
>folk off, but nothing stays the same forever. Bad decisions, made in
>the past, sometimes have to be radically corrected. Or, you could do
>things the MS way and build layer upon layer upon layer of performance
>killing, compatibility preserving, nonsense just so some geriatric old
>tosser can still run dBase v1.0.
Ha! Never change a winning team ;-)
-- Dirk Bellemans Modify email address to reply (use .be instead of .belgium)Received on Thu Aug 12 1999 - 00:00:00 CEST