Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 9th Sep 2012 22:58 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 534738
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Windows is ill suited...
by f0dder on Tue 11th Sep 2012 17:40
in reply to "RE[3]: Windows is ill suited..."
RE[4]: Windows is ill suited...
by moondevil on Tue 11th Sep 2012 18:43
in reply to "RE[3]: Windows is ill suited..."
"Windows is no different than other commercial operating systems.
Except Windows sucks balls with POSIX semantics while most other operating systems, commercial or not, doesn't.
This makes a big difference for most things that aren't .Net or Java. Sure, you can do it but it's not much fun. I've done Python on Windows and I'd rather not.
Don't even get me started on the fun that is fskcing around with cygwin or even trying to build stuff from source. Breeze on Linux/BSD, not so much on Windows. "
There are commercial operating systems that are even less compliant with POSIX than Windows is.
It would help if people would write portable code to start with, instead of trying to run POSIX everywhere.
RE[5]: Windows is ill suited...
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Sep 2012 03:29
in reply to "RE[4]: Windows is ill suited..."
There are commercial operating systems that are even less compliant with POSIX than Windows is.
Well I am presuming we're talking about mainstream stuff here, not niche operating systems with even smaller market share than Linux/BSD.
It would help if people would write portable code to start with, instead of trying to run POSIX everywhere.
POSIX is portable to pretty much every mainstream OS except Windows. Heck, the purpose of POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is to be portable and it's not exactly difficult to implement. MS just don't care enough to do it even remotely well.
Edited 2012-09-12 03:30 UTC
RE[5]: Windows is ill suited...
by boldingd on Fri 14th Sep 2012 21:22
in reply to "RE[4]: Windows is ill suited..."
It would help if people would write portable code to start with, instead of trying to run POSIX everywhere.
And what system interface should we write this portable code against? A lot of the APIs present in POSIX are pretty lean and pretty basic; the POSIX file API has, what, eleven major entry points*? You're either saying that people shouldn't open files, handle strings or allocate memory in "portable code", or you're saying that there's some smaller, simpler, more portable API than POSIX that we should be using.
* fopen, fclose, fread, fwrite, fprintf, fscanf, fgets, fgetc, fputc, ftell, fseek; yes, there are obviously more, but those eleven will cover most of your common desktop use-cases.
Edit: I is not can kount.
Edited 2012-09-14 21:23 UTC





Member since:
2005-08-18
Except Windows sucks balls with POSIX semantics while most other operating systems, commercial or not, doesn't. This makes a big difference for most things that aren't .Net or Java. Sure, you can do it but it's not much fun. I've done Python on Windows and I'd rather not.
Don't even get me started on the fun that is fskcing around with cygwin or even trying to build stuff from source. Breeze on Linux/BSD, not so much on Windows.
It works really well on BSD's too.