they are not building compilers and os'es. mishka
On 6/18/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 ... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
