Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> unicode layer for Windows is not part of Win9x, it's a separate add-on. This means that in order to use a D executable, the user would have to find and install MSLU. This is unacceptable - I don't want to deal with the constant "bug reports" about this.
> 
> Supporting 9x in general is a huge pain.  There are a lot of important library features that it doesn't provide.

Couldn't that be just dropped? MS itself dropped support for them six months ago:

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean18


Andrei

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> unicode layer for Windows is not part of Win9x, it's a separate add-on. This means that in order to use a D executable, the user would have to find and install MSLU. This is unacceptable - I don't want to deal with the constant "bug reports" about this.
> 
> Supporting 9x in general is a huge pain.  There are a lot of important library features that it doesn't provide.

The basic stuff, like file I/O, does work, and must work.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> unicode layer for Windows is not part of Win9x, it's a separate add-on. This means that in order to use a D executable, the user would have to find and install MSLU. This is unacceptable - I don't want to deal with the constant "bug reports" about this.
>>
>> Supporting 9x in general is a huge pain.  There are a lot of important library features that it doesn't provide.
> 
> The basic stuff, like file I/O, does work, and must work.

Well sure, but their socket library and threading support are somewhat weak.  I'll admit that my opinion is skewed towards my own particular areas of interest.


Sean

"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:er24ru$171o$1@digitalmars.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>> unicode layer for Windows is not part of Win9x, it's a separate add-on. This means that in order to use a D executable, the user would have to find and install MSLU. This is unacceptable - I don't want to deal with the constant "bug reports" about this.
>>>
>>> Supporting 9x in general is a huge pain.  There are a lot of important library features that it doesn't provide.
>>
>> The basic stuff, like file I/O, does work, and must work.
>
> Well sure, but their socket library and threading support are somewhat weak.  I'll admit that my opinion is skewed towards my own particular areas of interest.

You make a great point: isn't Phobos using winsock2? This is also an add-on for the older windows systems.

L

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:er24ru$171o$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> unicode layer for Windows is not part of Win9x, it's a separate add-on. This means that in order to use a D executable, the user would have to find and install MSLU. This is unacceptable - I don't want to deal with the constant "bug reports" about this.
>>>> Supporting 9x in general is a huge pain.  There are a lot of important library features that it doesn't provide.
>>> The basic stuff, like file I/O, does work, and must work.
>> Well sure, but their socket library and threading support are somewhat weak.  I'll admit that my opinion is skewed towards my own particular areas of interest.
> 
> You make a great point: isn't Phobos using winsock2? This is also an add-on for the older windows systems.

It shipped with the second revision of Win95. There must be very few Win9x systems that don't have it, and those that don't would not be using sockets. It's pretty safe to assume it's installed.