Sorry, Miska: I disagree.
My career for 20 years was involved with development of software for
UNIX, VMS, Mac OS, and Windows systems (13-some years of that was Mac
OS work from inside Apple) *and* most of my work was with developers
of compilers, linkers, debuggers, and performance analysis tools. I
was instrumental in launching eight Mac OS operating system versions,
five versions of Apple's development tools suite, and at least two
hundred externally developed commercial applications in the course of
my years with Apple.
I also designed and implemented an application programming interface
that ran on Sun UNIX, Mac OS, HP/UX, and Windows, using which eight
commercial applications were delivered.
Portable code is a holy grail ... any code is able to be ported given
enough effort ... and great masses of source code can be common
across a lot of platforms. But moving from one processor word size to
another can be quite tricky.
Godfrey
On Jun 18, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Mishka wrote:
building things that are portable across win32 *and* unices,
32 and/or 64 (*), is what i do daily. i have a pretty good idea of
what's involved. it's very doable, and not a big deal, really,
if you write things with portability in mind.
mishka
(*) winxp, mac osx, linux 32, linux 64, irix 64, sunos 64.
On 6/18/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Portable code" is almost an oxymoron.
...
It's a non trivial job.
Godfrey
On Jun 18, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Mishka wrote:
32->64 porting is not a big deal, if you have portable code
On 6/18/05, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it's just a question of critical mass. Every time things have
changed (8 to
16-bit to 32-bit, 86 to 286 to 38s, Dos to Windows, etc.) the same
stories
have been churned out and the same prophets have predicted doom.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 June 2005 10:53
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: For those considering WindowsXP 64bit
No. But still interesting to notice that a major company does
not want to get involved with developing drivers for that OS.
2005/6/18, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
to install The Only True OS (that is, linux)?
but, in the end, canon claims that it's a lousy software company.
is that a news?
mishka
On 6/17/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thibouille"
Subject: For those considering WindowsXP 64bit
Just read this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24004
We'd better wait...
It's pretty much a rehash of what Microsoft themselves is
saying,
other than the self serving pap from Canon.
I do wonder why I bothered to buy a 64 bit processor, if the
software writers are going to refuse to support it.
William Robb
--
----------------------
Thibouille
----------------------
*ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX and KR-10x ...
