> On 2017-06-21, at 18:37, Spiro Trikaliotis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > * On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 06:35:24PM +0200 email@example.com wrote: > >> I understand (and know, in fact). But it seems I wasn't entirely >> clear. The sentence should be read as: "I can't envision [myself >> writing] a commercial product (game f.e.) that would just break >> because the machine has a different but still valid VIC chip inside". >> Not that I am writing one now ;-) but the old habits never die... > > But now, we know of all these variants, so we can take them into > account. Back in the days, I suspect most people did not know about > these differences. Didn't notice yesterday.. Very valid point, indeed. I guess that even the higher profile products, which employed un-officially-documented features / tricks could be affected by the "democoding style" as Marko liked to point out. Meaning more or less "patching back and forth until it works on my particular machine because I don't know how and why it actually works" :-) -- SD! - http://e4aws.silverdr.com/ Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2017-06-22 15:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.