View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
On Sunday, January 22, 2012 13:02:12 Walter Bright wrote:
> I think we ought to support things as long as MS officially does. After
> that, I'm game at abandoning official support, if for no other reason than
> not being able to develop/debug/test on those platforms.

Then can we just agree to drop support for pre-Win2K Windows platforms? Being 
able to remove all of the stuff like `useWfuncs` would definitely allow us to 
clean up the Windows-related code in Phobos. Having to worry about it has 
definitely increased the complexity of the Windows API code in Phobos.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
On 1/22/2012 7:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Being able to remove all of the stuff like `useWfuncs` would definitely allow us to
> clean up the Windows-related code in Phobos. Having to worry about it has
> definitely increased the complexity of the Windows API code in Phobos.

I wrote much of that code, and it did not make the code terribly dirty or gross 
or excessively complex. It's a minor detail. The main issue, as far as I'm 
concerned, is the existing code never gets tested on Win95 anymore, so we don't 
know if it works.
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
I find it kind of funny that someone would use a *new* language to
support an *ancient* platform. If someone is still hacking with win9x
support I bet their dev environment is -- VC6.
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
On Sunday, January 22, 2012 19:55:21 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/22/2012 7:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Being able to remove all of the stuff like `useWfuncs` would definitely
> > allow us to clean up the Windows-related code in Phobos. Having to
> > worry about it has definitely increased the complexity of the Windows
> > API code in Phobos.
> I wrote much of that code, and it did not make the code terribly dirty or
> gross or excessively complex. It's a minor detail. The main issue, as far
> as I'm concerned, is the existing code never gets tested on Win95 anymore,
> so we don't know if it works.

It's not horrible, but it does complicate the code. I know that it's caused 
some issues for the folks adding to std.windows.registry. And it has to be 
maintained as other changes are made. For instance, I'd like to go in and make 
std.file support string types of wchar and dchar. But toMBSz doesn't support 
anything other than strings of char, so I'm going to have to go and make 
toMBSz support other string types, and all for platforms that are more or less 
dead. If we got rid of useWfuncs, then that's not a problem anymore, but we 
can't do that as long as we try and support pre-Win2K.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
On 1/22/2012 8:04 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> It's not horrible, but it does complicate the code. I know that it's caused
> some issues for the folks adding to std.windows.registry. And it has to be
> maintained as other changes are made. For instance, I'd like to go in and make
> std.file support string types of wchar and dchar. But toMBSz doesn't support
> anything other than strings of char, so I'm going to have to go and make
> toMBSz support other string types, and all for platforms that are more or less
> dead. If we got rid of useWfuncs, then that's not a problem anymore, but we
> can't do that as long as we try and support pre-Win2K.

Why make std.file support wchar and dchar? You triple the number of functions, 
all for rarely used cases, and one where the user can trivially convert wstring 
to string at the call site.
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
On Sunday, January 22, 2012 20:58:33 Walter Bright wrote:
> Why make std.file support wchar and dchar? You triple the number of
> functions, all for rarely used cases, and one where the user can trivially
> convert wstring to string at the call site.

It doesn't triple the number of functions. You just templatize them. You only 
get triple the number of functions if you actually use them with all 3 string 
types. But we've had complaints in general about Phobos functions only 
supporting string rather than char[] or wstring or whatever. Templatizing 
std.file's functions on string types helps alleviate that. And on Windows, it 
would even allow you to pass a wstring without having to convert to a string 
first and then back to a wstring to pass to the Windows API functions, which 
could reduce that number of string operations required for file operations. 
Regardless, the idea is to make the functions more flexible. They don't _need_ 
to be restricted to string specifically.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.716.1327278278.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Monday, January 23, 2012 00:14:27 Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> On 22/01/2012 23:48, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > It would be insane to not support XP at this point. Not only does XP
>> > still support it, but there are tons of people who have refused to move
>> > on. IIRC, Microsoft was effectively forced to support it longer because
>> > of the number of people (particularly companies) who refused to
>> > upgrade. However, I see no reason to support anything older than XP.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Principle of least surprise.  Somebody compiling for a given target 
>> platform
>> should expect whether it runs on a given version of the platform to be 
>> down
>> to the APIs the program uses, not the language the program is written in.
>
> Except that druntime and Phobos use those APIs. So, it matters. And since 
> the
> number of people using pre-Win2K is extremely low, I see that as a 
> complete
> non-issue.
>
>> Moreover, it seems a lot of currently maintained software still claims to
>> support Win2000 - Firefox and OpenOffice for instance.  For a whole
>> programming language, the majority of whose users will be writing much
>> simpler programs than this, to have higher system requirements than this
>> seems absurd.
>
> As I said in my previous post, while ideally we'd say that we don't 
> support
> anything older than WinXP, saying that we support Win2K probably costs us
> nothing. It's the pre-Win2K that's the problem with the lack of W 
> functions
> and the like.
>
> The next version of Windows beyond that that it would be useful to be able 
> to
> say that we don't support anything older than is Vista. I would _love_ to 
> be
> able to do that Vista is the oldest that we support, because Vista added a
> bunch of useful API calls and the like. But we obviously can't do that 
> anytime
> soon. The user base for XP is huge. The same can't be said of pre-Win2K.
>
> So, I really think that we should say that we don't support pre-Win2K, and 
> I'd
> like to say that we don't support pre-XP, but I don't think that it hurts 
> us
> any to say that we support Win2K.
>

I agree on all points.

But you know, the really bizarre thing is, *all* MS has to do to win over 
all the XP people (or at least the majority of them) is two simple things:

1. *Allow* people to use the XP UI (and no, I don't mean Luna). It's that 
simple: Just *quit* making UI changes mandatory (a lesson Mozilla could 
stand to learn, too, especially since they allegedly care so much about 
configurability).

2. Ditch the AV-crippling and driver-revocation bullshit.

That's it. That's all they have to do. The core of Win7 is basically solid 
(from what I hear). But they can't handle that, can they? Talk about digging 
one's own grave. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Vista and Win7 (and Win8) 
have not only caused people to stick with XP, but also caused a lot of 
Win->Lin converts - I'm getting closer and closer to that myself. All they 
(or Mozilla) seem to care about anymore is just fucking around with the UI 
everyone already liked - and redoing it over, and over, and over.
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 05:30:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 1. *Allow* people to use the XP UI (and no, I don't mean Luna).

You can...

> Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Vista and Win7 (and Win8) have 
> not only caused people to stick with XP, but also caused a lot 
> of Win->Lin converts

I'd be very surprised if it did.
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.722.1327291162.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>I find it kind of funny that someone would use a *new* language to
> support an *ancient* platform. If someone is still hacking with win9x
> support I bet their dev environment is -- VC6.

While I agree 9x isn't worth supporting, calling it "ancient" is pure 
hyperbole. CP/M is ancient. ProDOS is arguably ancient. Hell, Win2 could 
even be called ancient. Win9x is just simply old/outdated. Christ, it 
includes an OS (WinMe) that's arguably *ONE* version prior to a version 
that's still heavily used - XP. (Hell, even Win98 was the version that 
*most* people used immediately prior to the still-heavily-used XP).

I know I'm going all off on something that really is nitpicky, but misuse of 
grandiose words like "ancient", "epic", etc., to refer to fairly trivial 
matters is a bit of a pet peeve...

(Hell, using "ancient" to refer to "computers more than 5-10 years old" is 
itself rather..."ancient".)
January 23, 2012
Re: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?
"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message 
news:jfis68$2uv7$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.722.1327291162.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>I find it kind of funny that someone would use a *new* language to
>> support an *ancient* platform. If someone is still hacking with win9x
>> support I bet their dev environment is -- VC6.
>
> While I agree 9x isn't worth supporting, calling it "ancient" is pure 
> hyperbole. CP/M is ancient. ProDOS is arguably ancient. Hell, Win2 could 
> even be called ancient. Win9x is just simply old/outdated. Christ, it 
> includes an OS (WinMe) that's arguably *ONE* version prior to a version 
> that's still heavily used - XP. (Hell, even Win98 was the version that 
> *most* people used immediately prior to the still-heavily-used XP).
>
> I know I'm going all off on something that really is nitpicky, but misuse 
> of grandiose words like "ancient", "epic", etc., to refer to fairly 
> trivial matters is a bit of a pet peeve...
>
> (Hell, using "ancient" to refer to "computers more than 5-10 years old" is 
> itself rather..."ancient".)
>

FWIW, I do agree that "new language on an...outdated...platform" does have 
an air of anachronism.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home