Apple Shouldn't Allow Itself To Be A Victim Of Robin Hood
Linked by umad on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:51 UTC
Apple I thought OSNews would be a good forum to talk about a matter that has been weighing on my mind lately primarily because the site has been so focused on Apple's patents and litigation as of late. The news that HP, the largest PC manufacturer in the world is spinning off or getting out of this business is what really prompted me to write this article.
E-mail Print r 5   · Read More · 141 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jdc
Thread beginning with comment 487019
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wait a minute...
by axilmar on Fri 26th Aug 2011 12:05 UTC in reply to "Wait a minute..."
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Microsoft incorporated actual code from Apple into their software.


And that's the reason Win32's calling convention is PASCAL: the original Mac toolbox was written in Pascal:

http://hintsforums.macworld.com/archive/index.php/t-97075.html

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Wait a minute...
by galvanash on Fri 26th Aug 2011 14:10 in reply to "RE: Wait a minute..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25


And that's the reason Win32's calling convention is PASCAL: the original Mac toolbox was written in Pascal


Except its not... Win32's calling convention is stdcall and always has been.

Maybe you meant the 16-bit Windows API? Yes, this used pascal cc, but so did OS/2 and virtually every other 16-bit api on x86 at the time, and it certainly was not because of the ridiculous notion they were trying to be compatible with the Mac toolbox. Besides, Windows 1.0 was written in a mixture of assembly and C - Microsoft almost never used Pascal for development.

Hint: Using pascal calling convention has nothing at all to do with the Pascal language or compatibility with it - it was used because it was slightly faster than cdecl and more importantly it resulted in saving a few bytes of overhead relative to cdecl at every call point. The only thing you really lose is the ability to have optional parameters, but for most well designed APIs optional parameters are something you actively avoid.

Reply Parent Score: 3