This is a good question albeit one with a boring answer. Different systems evolved different encodings for newlines in the same way they evolved different behavior for myriad other things: Each system had to standardize on something and interoperability in the days before email let alone the Internet was unimportant.
There are several ways to represent newlines. ASCII-based systems use some combination of carriage return and line feed. These derive from typewriters: A carriage return (CR) resets the typewriter carriage’s horizontal position to the far left and a line feed (LF) advances the paper one vertical line. For a typewriter, you need both, so some systems (DOS, Windows, Palm OS) adopted CR+LF as representation of a newline. Other systems, such as Unix, noted a computer didn’t have a carriage to return so a sole line feed was sufficient. Still others, such as Mac OS prior to OS X, adopted only a carriage return—arguably, this choice doesn’t make any sense, as a bare carriage return would swing the typewriter carriage back to the left but not advance the page. Still other systems used LF+CR, inverting the ASCII characters used in Windows.
Systems not based on ASCII, of course, did their own thing. IBM mainframes built around EBCDIC, for example, used a special newline character (NL). Perhaps oddest of all, VMS utilized a record-based filesystem where newlines were first-class citizens to the operating system. Each record was implicitly its own line and thus there were no explicit newline representation!
But none of this mattered, because these systems never had to interoperate with each other—or, if they did, they had to make so many other conversions that newline representation was the least of their worries.
Today, most Internet protocols recommend CR+LF but dictate compatibility with LF (CR and LF+CR are left out in the cold). Given the centrality of the Internet, the ubiquity of Unix, which heralds LF, the primacy of C and descendant languages, which (somewhat) map their newline to LF, and the fact we really only need one character to represent a newline, LF seems the clear standard going forward.
I’m literally crying laughing now …
Often referred to as waterfall, the old method of a static page being created by a designer, approved by a product owner, and then handed off to developers without further communication does not produce results in the best interests of anyone involved. The product owner doesn’t see the final product until it is all finished and ready for launch, much too late to make any significant corrections or alter the path of the project.
Instead, a more agile process, where product owners, designers, and developers all work in conjunction with one another to build value in a product throughout its development cycle, is needed. One where a small amount of work and constant feedback between all parties can build a large project out of small parts. One where the final project may not have every bell and whistle hoped for, but rather has an array of features that fulfill the maximum potential of the cost of development based on business and user needs. This is a large change in the way most individuals and organizations have done this type of work in the past, but by sticking to this process, a better product will be built in the long run, and those involved in the building will not be exhausted or burnt out by the process.
Well, today I’ve learned something new. Typing a query like this:
UPDATE `table` SET `field` = '1' WHERE `id` = '123'
I made a typo and entered the following:
UPDATE `table` SET `field` = '1' WHERE `id` - '123'
Yup. A simple dash (-) instead of an equal (=) sign. I know, I’m supposed to do a SELECT before, or use a transaction, or, at least, have a backup of the database – depending on which school of thought you follow the most. I didn’t have any of these. And once the query went in, there was little I could do.
Guess what the query does? I’m still looking into the exact consequences, but so far it looks like ALL records EXCEPT the one with id 123 have been updated.
Gladly I have some history revision tables from which I could restore most of the state. But this is scary dangerous anyway. I would expect a syntax error intuitively.