On 17.12.2011 16:37, Trass3r wrote:
>>  DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.
>
> How is that different from a Windows console app?

From an interface point of view, it's basically the same thing. They both support character graphics (like ncurses).  Internally, they wouldn't have anything in common at all.

On 17.12.2011 17:59, torhu wrote:
> On 17.12.2011 16:37, Trass3r wrote:
>>>   DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.
>>
>>  How is that different from a Windows console app?
>
>   From an interface point of view, it's basically the same thing. They
> both support character graphics (like ncurses).  Internally, they
> wouldn't have anything in common at all.

The only commercial application I can think of that runs in the Windows console and uses character graphics is Far Manager.  20 years there were lots of applications like that, but they ran on top of DOS instead of Windows.

Trass3r Wrote:

> > DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.
> 
> How is that different from a Windows console app?

No Solitare, Facebook... much more productive!

Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh.

cmd.exe /c edit

On 17.12.2011 19:05, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh.
>
> cmd.exe /c edit

Makes me wonder what it's for, can you run a Windows server without the GUI?

On 17.12.2011 18:21, Bane wrote:
> Trass3r Wrote:
>
>>  >  DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.
>>
>>  How is that different from a Windows console app?
>
> No Solitare, Facebook... much more productive!

Most likely they're running the DOS app in a window in Windows, but that's a good point.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:14:51 -0800, torhu <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 17.12.2011 19:05, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh.
>>
>> cmd.exe /c edit
>
> Makes me wonder what it's for, can you run a Windows server without the GUI?

Starting with Windows Server 2008 there is something called the Server Core role, which has no GUI. And they've been improving it ever since. MS is having a back-to-the-basics push internally right now.

-- 
Adam Wilson
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:20:50 -0000, Trass3r - un@known.com <+dmd+browseruk+31526d5b7d.un#known.com@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

It's a shame that

   a) you guys apparently cannot imagine a use for a 64-bit D on Windows.
   b) the interfaces to this newsgroup are virtually impossible to use.
   c) The only response from Mr Bright on the subject is "people are still using 16-bit".

I've been following along with for must be close to 5 years now, waiting for it to mature into a usable, production quality product.
I see I am once again too early.

buk

On 12/18/11 5:11 PM, dmd.20.browseruk@xoxy.net wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:20:50 -0000, Trass3r - un@known.com
> <+dmd+browseruk+31526d5b7d.un#known.com@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
> It's a shame that
>
> a) you guys apparently cannot imagine a use for a 64-bit D on Windows.

I don't think that argument has been seriously aired. Our trouble with Win64 generation is purely technological. Our toolchain would need major rework to approach that.

> b) the interfaces to this newsgroup are virtually impossible to use.

The NNTP interface works as well as NNTP itself works, so I think it the generalization is unfair. Most people including myself agree that the current web bridge sucks, and Vladimir Panteleev actually did something about it: http://dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net/discussion/group/digitalmars.D. We plan to integrate that after the holiday season.

> c) The only response from Mr Bright on the subject is "people are still
> using 16-bit".

That was but a side discussion. The situation is rather well known - accommodating Win64's object file format would be difficult.

> I've been following along with for must be close to 5 years now, waiting
> for it to mature into a usable, production quality product.
> I see I am once again too early.

Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to say Win64 generation will be done soon, or when it will be done. But this is not an issue of attitude of carelessness.


Thanks,

Andrei

On Thursday, 15 December 2011 at 21:05:05 UTC, captaindet wrote:
> On 2011-12-15 04:47, torhu wrote:
>> On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browseruk@xoxy.net wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?
>>>
>>> The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too
>>> much into that?
>>>
>>> Cheers, buk
>>>
>>
>> There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows.
>> What are you going to use it for?
>
> now what is this for a strange comment? you need 64bit for windows for the same reasons than for any other platform: accessing loads of mem. yes, for some this is really important! for me it is actually a dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB...
>
> my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.
>
> det





It is NOT just for memory addressing , wchi is very simple under 64 bit, but also 64 bit registers, 16 of them , not just 8 32 bit.  I think there should be a 64 bit version.