[A83] Re: windows programmation [OT]
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: windows programmation [OT]
http://www.acm.org/sigapl/apl.htm
I've never programmed it. After reading a little more it seems that apl(j
is based on apl) and j are interpretted languages and although ms sucks, i
think its pretty safe to say they would not suck so much as to write their
entire operating system in an interpretted language. I'm a little confused
as to why ms created a lanuage called J# (j sharp). J# appears to be very
much like java however i do not believe the language J to be based on java.
Brandon Sterner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter-Martijn Kuipers" <hyper@hbyte.net>
To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 6:08 PM
Subject: [A83] Re: windows programmation [OT]
>
> what's J?
>
> >
> >
> > No I don't mean java. I mean exactly what i said, "J".
> >
> > Brandon Sterner
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henk Poley" <HPoley@DDS.nl>
> > To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 7:13 AM
> > Subject: [A83] Re: windows programmation [OT]
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Van: Brandon Sterner <bms9019@rit.edu>
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't windows written in J?
> > > >
> > > > Brandon Sterner
> > >
> > > You mean Java? Oh, no Java is just about 6 years old or so. And Java
is
> > not
> > > a that fast platfrom (when < Pentium 500 MHz).
> > >
> > > Btw, a simplified history of MS Windows(TM):
> > >
> > > Win 1.xx, used ascii-art like windowing system (like dosshell)
> > >
> > > Win 2.xx, first graphical version (I even think Paint from back then
is
> > > better than the one they include nowadays)
> > >
> > > Win 3.0, Improved graphics
> > >
> > > Win 3.0a, first version where you could acces every single pixel
alone,
> > > last version to run on 8086 and above
> > >
> > > Win 3.1, 32-bit stuff added, only runs on 386 and above.
> > >
> > > Win 3.11, even more 32-bit things, and fancy animated icons...
> > > Win 3.11 For Workgroups, better network support than 'standard' Win
3.11
> > >
> > > Win 95, subsystem primairily based on Win 3.11, new desktop system,
> > > register added (didn't 3.11 have this already). There was a patch
(win32s)
> > > released for Win 3.1x to be able to run Win95 programs
> > >
> > > Win 95a/95A, bugs fixed, drivers added
> > >
> > > Win 95B, more bugs fixed, drivers added, preleminairy USB support
(buggy)
> > >
> > > Win 95C, (said to be) the most stable Win9x version (was only
available
> > for
> > > about 3 months), good USB support, FAT32
> > >
> > > Win 98, basicaly Win95 (B?) with: 'intergrated' Internet Explorer 4.0
(
> > see
> > > http://www.98lite.net/ ), new drivers, standard USB and FAT32 support,
> > > improved memory management to bypass performance-breakdown by IE
> > >
> > > Win 98SE, bugs fixed, new drivers, 'intergrated' IE5.0, more stable
than
> > > 'standard' Win98
> > >
> > > Win ME, beautyfied interface, bugs added, 'intergrated' IE5.5 (?), MS
> > > Agent, lots of unnecesairy stuff (video-editor, etc.), recognizes
> > Microsoft
> > > approved drivers (should be more stable).
> > >
> > > Don't know much about the Windows NT family (Win2000, WinXP).
> > >
> > > Henk Poley <><
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References: