backwards-compatibility

I have a few static libraries, which I'm not the owner of, compiled with an old version of g++ 4.3.2 (c++11/c++0x not activated). When I compile my code with g++ 4.6 (no c++11) and link it using g++ 4.6 with these static libraries, it links fine and I do not seem to get any issues at runtime (not tested everything though). I'm tempted to think that forward compatibility is OK. Now I'd like to compile my code with gcc 4.8 with c++11 and still link it with those same, not recompiled static libraries. Are ABI changes in g++ only an issue for linkage forward compatibility or can one get backward

When using the Java compiler ( javac ), we can specify two kinds of compatibility. One is using -source and the other is using -target . What is the difference between these two? For example, -source 1.5 and -target 1.6 ? Also, is there any case where we use a different source and target compatibility level? From the javac docs : -source Specifies the version of source code accepted. -target Generate class files that target a specified version of the VM. Class files will run on the specified target and on later versions, but not on earlier versions of the VM. In your example: -source 1.5 and

I'm working on a mobile phone web app and I have several text fields that could benefit from <input type="tel"/> . iPhones will adjust the keyboard for the user, but I'm worried about breaking backwards compatibility. What I'm hoping is that browsers/phone that support this can assist the user and other browser will fall back to a standard text field? Is this an acceptable practice? Does it even work? Yes, any unsupported type will revert to the 'type=text' format. I found a good page which lists out all the existing input types. I tried looking at it from different browsers, a bit interesting

I'm starting to work with my model almost exclusively in WCF and wanted to get some practical approaches to versioning these services over time. Can anyone point me in the right direction? There is a good writeup on Craig McMurtry's WebLog . Its from 2006, but most of it is still relevant. As well as a decision tree to walk through the choices, he shows how to implement those changes using Windows Communication Foundation See "Versioning WCF Services: Part I" and "Versioning WCF Services: Part II" . See also: WCF Backwards Compatibility and Versioning Strategies – Part 1 WCF Backward

Have there been incompatibilities between Java releases where Java source code/Java class files targeting Java version X won't compile/run under version Y (where Y > X) ? By "Java release" I mean versions such as: JDK 1.0 (January, 1996) JDK 1.1 (February, 1997) J2SE 1.2 (December, 1998) J2SE 1.3 (May, 2000) J2SE 1.4 (February, 2002) J2SE 5.0 (September, 2004) Java SE 6 (December, 2006) House rules: Please include references and code examples where possible. Please try to be very specific/concrete in your answer. A class that is being marked as @Deprecated does not count as a backwards

I just had a quick question about git - how backwards compatible are git repositories? Eg., I've created a repository using git 1.6.4 and the svn2git ruby script, but I want to put it on a machine that's running Debian Lenny, which has git 1.5.6.5. Would I still be able to interact with the repository properly? It's extremely backward compatible in terms of the actual storage of information, which is all you're worried about in this case. I'm not a total expert, but I doubt that's changed since the first stable release. The only compatibility problem I can think come up with is if the two

I'm writing a Ruby gem using the {key: 'value'} syntax for hashes throughout my code. My tests all pass in 1.9.x, but I (understandably) get syntax error, unexpected ':', expecting ')' in 1.8.7. Is there a best practice for supporting the 1.8.x? Do I need to rewrite the code using our old friend => , or is there a better strategy? I think you're out of luck, if you want to support 1.8 then you have to use => . As usual, I will mention that you must use => in certain cases in 1.9: If the key is not a symbol. Remember that any object (symbols, strings, classes, floats, ...) can be a key in a

I need to playback audio files in many different web browsers and different versions. The old system produces 4-bit WAV files, which many browsers can't handle. All files contain synthesized or recorded human voices. Anyway I'm gonna need to replace it. So my questions are: 1) what is the best file format to use for audio files, with regards to compatibility, size and quality? 2) what is the best way to use HTML5 and staying backwards-compatible? We need to support Internet Explorer versions 6, 7, 8 and 9; Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Update : finally got it working for IE 6-9, Firefox and