Re: TI-H: Re: Windows Compilers [Was: Linux link software.]
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: Re: Windows Compilers [Was: Linux link software.]
Whatever.... you can program anything perfectly in ANSI C... even windows
socks, I wouldn't want to try, but you know. This issue is really useless,
cuz if someone makes something Windows specific, then they are making it
for some dumb ass company. Otherwise their intent is to have many platforms
run that software. It just depends on what you are doing. Some guy making
software for a company running windows machines... go ahead, Visual C++....
someone making a program like an mp3 player... well, I'd consider multi
platforms and I'd either get a multi-platform-compiler, or I'd just program
it dynamically with #ifdef's.... Also, you don't want to bash windows....
if you want your OS of coice to exceed, you'd probably take a step at
showing everything GOOD that it can do. For instance, I was watching a
convention last year with that Steve Job's guy. He was showing everyone how
even the G3 233 killed the Pentium 300 with Graphics (apparently the PII
was %10 done when it finished *bllsht*). This type of bashing is so
ridiculous and just goes to show how much you are willing to mislead others
into getting that machine. If it were up to me, I would consider everything
needed to be done and everything that might need to be done in the future.
Linux is fine with KDE and even GNOME.... but for someone that is into
games.... there is no way they will be running it, and instead probably
windows. So going around saying that OpenStep, or NeXT, or BeOS, or Linux,
or in some odd cases, Windows is the best OS, it just isn't acceptable. All
of the OS activists are going about these things the wrong way.. especially
the people that walk around trying to be cool by calling it "Winblows"...
At 03:17 PM 4/12/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Windows can only compile for windows?
>
>Not windows, windows software...
>>THIS IS INCORRECT.
>>
>>I realize that Grant said, at first, that code meant to run only under
>>windows will only run under windows (duh.), but I think Rosyna took it
>>the wrong way. I therefore made the statement that it was not true that
>>windows would only compile for windows.
>>
>>Grant, you are still holding on to your first statment, where I was
>>trying to correct a different statment which branched off of yours. I'm
>>sorry that I did not make myself clear.
>>
>>Secondly, If I were to make a library for unix (say, winsock.h) which
>>enabled me to use the same commands I use in windows programming, then
>>your program example, AS-IS would run just fine under unix.
>
>Well, not realy. They all handle sockets differently.
>
>>Thirdly, it is completely possible for me to run a program on a windows
>>machine, which will compile code for other platforms. I can make mac
>>programs on my windows computer. I can make unix programs for the many
>>different processors which unix is available on my windows computer.
>>Just as that can be done on a unix system, mac system, or any or
>>computer platform.
>
>
>We all know that a processor can compile for different targets...
>
>>I am almost certian, Grant, that you know all this. So I'm assuming
>>that this was all a miscommunication. But I did want to make myself
>>clear for all those who may have been confused by our conversation.
>
>do dogs pee on brick walls?
>
>
-Dan
Follow-Ups:
References: