I have very little respect to people at Microsoft when it comes to technical side of things. Whenever I have to deal with their "creations" it's like they were motivated by malice, or part of their frontal cortex gone missing.
> The most obvious reason would be to use the executable itself to back the memory which the comment you replied to already hinted at.
Imagine that I've already read that, and I still see no reason to do that. So what? The code of the program will go missing? -- What's the big deal? Kill the process. User wanted to remove it anyways... Let the user decide what to do: system shouldn't second guess me.
In practice, this isn't really true? Like, when do users delete programs manually anymore? Its almost always some uninstaller doing it from some installed appstore type program (Steam, Adobe Cloud, etc). And usually the user is deleting the whole directory, which almost always has additional files that the program needs to actually work. Those files will be deleted so their install already gets corrupted either way.
So what? I want it, and I see no reason not to let me have it. Linux was designed with this main goal in mind: let people take ownership of their computers and do whatever the hell they want with them.
If your Linux doesn't do it -- I don't care. I'll make my Linux do it. Because that's how I want it to work.
> The most obvious reason would be to use the executable itself to back the memory which the comment you replied to already hinted at.
Imagine that I've already read that, and I still see no reason to do that. So what? The code of the program will go missing? -- What's the big deal? Kill the process. User wanted to remove it anyways... Let the user decide what to do: system shouldn't second guess me.