> ...and by early 2004 I had released the final version, v06.

I wish more software had "final version", where possible [0] as opposed to endless churn and inevitable "is this project dead" question after a couple of weeks/months of inactivity. [1]

[0] Obviously some projects can't do this. E.g. there is no way youtube-dl would ever have a final version, etc..

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=is+this+project+dead+site:gi...

Okay. That is hilarious.

http://bin.smwcentral.net/u/1686/boredom.asm

You won't believe me unless you try it for yourself, but ... download xkas v06 here:

http://www.romhacking.net/utilities/269/

Then download the above boredom.asm. And now run the following on the command-line:

    touch boredom.sfc
    xkas boredom.asm boredom.sfc

I guess they found a way to make it produce something your terminal can process.

He exploits the parser to corrupt the stack frame, and executes raw x86 instructions embedded in that file.

How exactly it converts that pile of gibberish into a valid x86 program is beyond even my comprehension.

Alcaro's always been a wizard at stuff like this. Here's an example of an SNES ROM image he crafted to execute native x86 code from inside ZSNES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3SOYneC7mU (Yes, you can potentially get a real PC virus from loading up an SNES ROM in ZSNES. Or a specially crafted source code file in xkas v06.)

"Newer versions have been released, however contain poor documentation, and removal of features that can be found in v0.06. Version 0.06 is still considered the best version available by most ROM hackers until the author addresses the shortcomings of subsequent versions."

The newer versions are called bass, and you can compare yourself here: http://byuu.org/tool/bass/

There is full documentation of every possible command, the code is readable by human beings (eg variables are named words instead of single letter abbreviations, C++ is used for more than just the class keyword, there's more than one source code file, I learned how to use the spacebar key in my code, etc), it has a real recursive descent parser that builds a proper abstract syntax tree for evaluations, it has a macro system that supports recursion and conditional evaluation, supports multiple architectures instead of just one, allows the user to dynamically add/change the actual opcode mnemonics used by the assembler (useful as the SNES has games using several strange coprocessors), has no known bugs (as opposed to xkas' that allow native code execution), etc. xkas was written when I had about a years' worth of real programming experience, bass was after over a decade's worth of experience; including experience using assemblers to create code.

If you want to know why RHDN users threw a fit about it; it's because I used // as a comment delimiter instead of ; and decided to add a closing marker to defines so you could say "lda {macro}_b", which was impossible with the old "lda !macro_b" because it'd look for "macro_b" instead of "macro".

That's really it. That's the whole of why many people there say they'll never use it. The syntax is 99% compatible otherwise. I could link you to posts saying as much, but I really don't feel like browsing their site any more than I have to.

SMWC's case is very different: they're all hacking the same game, so they require 100% backward-compatibility with a decade's worth of game patches; and they only make the problem worse as time goes on. This constraint would not apply to new games started on from scratch.

(eg. if you add {macro}, continue to support !macro as well)

Sometimes you do find that you've painted yourself into a corner, though.

But in xkas' case, this was code from before I really learned how to program; let alone design a proper parser. This would be like asking for strict compatibility between Linux 0.01 and Linux 3.0.

I understand how SMWC became trapped in a cycle of using xkas v06, but any new projects really have no sane reason to be using it anymore. And I'm not even saying, "use bass instead!", there's dozens of cross-assemblers that work much better than it ever did (it would seem that writing an assembler is a rite of passage for ROM hackers.)

Since you mention Linux, this is why Linus has the "no regressions" policy - if something works on kernel N then it should also work on kernel N+1, so that people can upgrade their kernel and not worry about something breaking in userspace. (I think there is actually a very good chance that an a.out binary compiled for Linux 0.01 would still work today.)

I definitely understand and respect your point.

In fact, I've lost about 80% of my userbase (about 80,000 users) to older versions (and forks galore) of my emulation software. And that's mostly due to lacking backward-compatibility with older game ROM formats.

I've since made efforts to accommodate using older media types, but the damage is done, so to speak.

> I think there is actually a very good chance that an a.out binary compiled for Linux 0.01 would still work today.

... seriously?? Jesus.

I don't even see how it's possible to produce good software that way. We don't know what we really want until we iterate over the design a few times. At least, that's the way it is with me. My first drafts have never been anything close to my ultimate designs.

You should see how amazingly better my GUI abstraction library (think wxWidgets but more like Qt with reference counting memory management and C++11 features) has gotten since the first version. I couldn't imagine being stuck with that first version in the name of backward compatibility. I'd rather be the only user of it than have that first version be it, and be as popular as wxWidgets is today.

I mean, I'm very much ashamed of xkas v06, and wish my name wasn't attached to it.

After you've been burned a few times, you start to get a feel for building interfaces that can be maintained while the entire design behind them is switched out. If you do need to change the entire interface, sometimes you end up supporting old interfaces with a shim layer that translates them into calls to the new interfaces.

For example, the a.out binary format supported by the original versions of Linux has long since been superseded by the ELF format, because the deficiencies in the old format became too much to bear - but that doesn't stop the latest kernels from being able to support that old format still.

You can't just leave old code alone and the features remain. Any time you go to restructure some code, or support some other mode, or do some other kind of action, it ends up affecting this old code and you have to go and make changes to it as well. Then that old code breaks on a new version of the compiler, so you have more fixes to make. And it increases compilation times, binary sizes, and lines of code. It's another vector for malicious attacks. It's more to keep mentally in your head all at once.

I suppose it's one thing if you have a steward willing to take over, say, the a.out branch of the binary loader. But it's quite another in my case where I'm the sole developer of my software, and no one shows any interest in maintaining the legacy UI, or versions of the emulation core that focus more on performance at the expense of compatibility, so I have to drop that stuff. (Yet it is a bit disappointing when people are willing to fork the entire codebase instead to achieve the same goals, but I digress.)

Again, I agree with what you're saying, and I'd say Linux or Mozilla Firefox or Qt certainly has the manpower for this sort of thing. But as a solo developer, I can see why people would sacrifice this backward-compatibility from time to time.

I'm not sure on your point about getting a feel for interfaces. Certainly, it seems that every year or two, I feel like I've made great strides and am finally on the cusp of stable interfaces. Yet invariably, a year or two later, I look back and think the same thing again. I've come to the conclusion that we never stop evolving and that thinking we've reached perfection is always self-delusion. But, maybe I'll get there in the future. I certainly hope so.

Certainly, but it's the kind of cost that comes with having a lot of users, so it falls into the "nice problem to have" basket. If you've got no users, you have a lot more freedom to throw things away.

I understand where you're coming from, because I also do mostly-sole-maintenance on a large codebase with all the issues that come with a 20 year legacy. One strategy that can work in such a situation where you can't maintain perfect backwards-compatibility forever is to boil the frogs slowly - gradually deprecate and remove features over a longish time frame, because a single changed or missing feature is easier to adapt to for the userbase than a whole slew at once (many people probably don't even use the feature and won't notice).

See http://www.computerworld.com/article/2554467/linux/torvalds-...

Of course they did