December 14, 2011
On 2011-12-14 14:39, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Also, I think it'd make sense that druntime and phobos continue to
> support 32-bit OS X in case someone wants to target iOS one day, which
> is basically 32-bit OS X on ARM.

Never thought of that, it's a good point.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 14, 2011
On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
>> imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>
> Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some
> rare exceptions)!

Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to maintain that support these days...

- Alex
December 14, 2011
On 12/14/2011 8:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
>>> imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>>
>> Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some
>> rare exceptions)!
>
> Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to maintain that
> support these days...

I rely on that to test the 16 bit support of Digital Mars C/C++. It's the only modern compiler that supports the 16 bit x86 world, and there are a few customers that like it.

I.e. you don't have to get a compiler from some "museum".
December 14, 2011
On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's
> already supported.

There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.
December 14, 2011
On 12/14/2011 09:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
>> wrote:
>>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
>>> imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>>
>> Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some
>> rare exceptions)!
>
> Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to
> maintain that support these days...
>
> - Alex
I work for a company who has large enough contracts in Brazil who still run Windows NT to justify the continued use of Visual Studio 2005 to build software for NT and XP (though most of our Windows developers develop in VS2010 and then make sure it still works in VS2005). Apple has the opportunity to depreciate entire architectures because they aren't as ubiquitous as Microsoft products. They don't have billion dollar contracts that request they spend an extra 200 million a year to support their old stuff. At least that's the only justification I can think of to stay on older software.
December 15, 2011
On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at
>>> all.
>> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I
>> mean, it's
>> already supported.
>
> There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.

But as Michel mentioned, iPhone is 32bit and I think that is a good point.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 15, 2011
On 2011-12-15 07:22:47 +0000, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> said:

> On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at
>>>> all.
>>> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I
>>> mean, it's
>>> already supported.
>> 
>> There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.
> 
> But as Michel mentioned, iPhone is 32bit and I think that is a good point.

And I believe DMD can already create executables that would work on the iPhone simulator, since those are simply 32-bit Mac OS X executables linked to a different set of frameworks.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

December 15, 2011
On 2011-12-14 18:28:07 +0000, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> said:

> On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
>> Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's
>> already supported.
> 
> There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.

It's one thing to ask developers to use 64-bit machines for development, it's another to say to developers they can't target 32-bit users if they choose to use DMD. Even Apple ships everything with dual architecture binaries these days, and some of Apple's apps also keep PowerPC support, iTunes for instance.

And also iOS is 32-bit.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

December 15, 2011
Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> 
> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
> 
> - Alex

You imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win
XP 32 bits (like me).
December 15, 2011
On 15-12-2011 18:04, Somedude wrote:
> Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
>>
>> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine
>> that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>>
>> - Alex
>
> You imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win
> XP 32 bits (like me).

Amount of users has nothing to do with whether Microsoft will continue to support it. Microsoft has well-defined lifecycles for support on their products. I'm not sure what you being on a 32-bit OS from 2001 has to do with my imagination of the future in 2011. :)

There are many reasons a company like Microsoft would want to let 32-bit x86 die; only having to maintain one platform being one of such. It is undeniable that the trend is going towards 64-bit (and this is a Good Thing, obviously).

- Alex
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home