[News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns - Linux ; Matt wrote: > Joe Potter wrote: > >>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of >>> cross-platform development tools and applications. >> >> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross >> platform tools ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 98

Thread: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

  1. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Matt wrote:

    > Joe Potter wrote:
    >
    >>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>> cross-platform development tools and applications.

    >>
    >> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >> platform tools have existed for decades.

    >
    >
    > Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    > 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and Apple.


    Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist then

    That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist
    --
    Avoid reality at all costs.


  2. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 30 September 2008 23:17 : \____

    > Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>
    >>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>
    >>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>> platform tools have existed for decades.

    >>
    >>
    >> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    >> 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and Apple.

    >
    > Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist then
    >
    > That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist


    It's Scott Douglas, AKA Scott Nudds, Ezekiel...

    It seems like his style.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Prevalence does not imply ideali$M
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    00:05:01 up 13 days, 7:44, 2 users, load average: 10.67, 10.63, 10.71
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjivwgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo50LACfbj6OfNrZUD kqHIMoJFlBVYVx
    5hMAn31sm3fDWyPzmV2BhVw6sy4AB7+y
    =MWJY
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    On Sep 30, 7:12*pm, Matt wrote:
    > Joe Potter wrote:
    > >> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of cross-platform
    > >> development tools and applications.

    >
    > > It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross platform
    > > tools have existed for decades.

    >
    > Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    > 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and Apple.


    The TK toolkit could do it, and was available for Windows, Linux and
    Unix, but not Apple - because Apple didn't use UNIX in 1995.

    The TK toolkit resolved to X11 calls (Athena I believe).

    The Xview toolkit from HP worked with both Motif and Windows, and I
    think it was used in Netscape.

    Later, the Qt toolkit also provided Windows and Linux and Unix
    capabilities, and was available in source code formats.

    The GTK was the GNU extension of the TK toolkit, and also worked with
    Windows, Linux, and Unix - as well as Apple OS/X.

    Java AWT also supported a single source that would work on Windows and
    Linux, and all versions of Java from 1.2 on supported GUI APIs that
    worked well on both Windows, Unix and Linux and IIRC - Apple.

    Borland also had wrapper toolkits that worked on both Windows and
    Linux/Unix.

    Of course, if you had hummingbird X11, you could run many X11 Posix
    applications on Windows as well.

    This doesn't mean that Windows ran well, or was always stable. In
    fact, Microsoft seems to have launched several torpedos designed to
    deliberately break those applications that used them.



  4. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Joe Potter belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > The problem is that your imaginary little program that you FTP across
    > platforms is useless. C (and eventually C++) has often been called a
    > "portable assembler" because the language itself supports very little. If
    > your imaginary program is nothing more than some command line app that let's
    > people enter some text and displays some text on the screen then there's no
    > problem using any compiler.


    You're lumping in C++ as a "portable assembler"? Crazy dude!

    > But that's not what a real program does. Programs do things like create
    > threads, run in graphical mode, process mouse input, output data to a
    > printer, connect to a database and all sorts of other things that are NOT
    > supported by C/C++.


    I think you mean "not provided by Standard C++ libraries".

    > It's not a matter of being limited in "thinking" - it's a matter of the
    > *DEVELOPER* (not the compiler) making sure the code is cross platform. Even
    > today, unless someone uses a cross-platform toolkit (and doesn't go outside
    > of the toolkit) you can't write a meaningful C/C++ program that you can run
    > on different platforms by simply FTP-ing the source to another machine and
    > compiling it. It just doesn't work that way unless you're talking about
    > "hello world" applications.


    Or unless you think first, then code, then test and debug on multiple
    platforms.

    >> I don't know whether all the history Rex presents is correct, but he is
    >> dead on that Microsoft couldn't have gotten a desktop monopoly if it had
    >> been easy to build cross-platform apps. That is absolutely right, and
    >> there is no more important way to understand the monopoly.

    >
    > You simply don't have a clue about software development. Even today you
    > can't write cross platform apps in C/C++ without a toolkit or framework.
    > Unless it's some useless "hello world" application.


    I'll have to call "fool" on that one. You can write a /lot/ of useful
    cross-platform C/C++ code that has nothing to do with threads, GUIs,
    printers, audio, or databases.

    >> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of cross-platform
    >> development tools and applications.

    >
    > It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross platform
    > tools have existed for decades.


    True. What's been missing is the other platforms, which have finally
    become serious competition to Microsoft's platform.

    --
    Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.

  5. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Matt writes:

    > Joe Potter wrote:
    >> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    >> news:d79e36fd-02b6-45e9-972d-60aece0a354f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    >> On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Matt writes:
    >>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...s/index.cfm?bl...
    >>>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>>> programming languages.
    >>> Actually, that was one of Microsoft's biggest concerns about Borland.
    >>> Borland not only made sure that they were source code compatible with
    >>> BSD UNIX (Linux wasn't out until later),

    >>
    >> Nonsense. It's not your "compiler" that is "source code compaitble"
    >> with Unix. If cross-platform code is needed (re: runs on Windows and
    >> Unix and ....) then it's the developers job to make sure the code
    >> they write is source code compatible across platforms. It's the code
    >> being written, NOT the compiler that is source code compatible.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> This was probably one of the reasons that Microsoft targeted Borland,
    >>> because Microsoft wanted total control of the desktop. Borland
    >>> offering developers the ability to take UNIX code and compile it on
    >>> Turbo C or Turbo C++, left the door wide open for MS-DOS and Windows
    >>> applications that ran as well, or better, on UNIX.

    >>
    >> Complete rubish. Turbo C++ **NEVER** supported or ran on
    >> Unix. Turbo C++ was a DOS (then later Windows) ONLY product.

    >
    >
    > You can't conceive that somebody would want to use Turbo C++ to write
    > a C++ program and run it on DOS, then ftp the source code to some
    > other machine with a different OS and a different compiler and expect
    > the code to run---or that somebody would want to take C++ code from a
    > Unix machine and use it with Turbo on a DOS box. I don't like to
    > think that there are many programmers that limited in their thinking.


    Its not about what he "conceives". He was stating a fact about Turbo
    C++.

    >
    > I don't know whether all the history Rex presents is correct, but he


    I do. It's not.

    > is dead on that Microsoft couldn't have gotten a desktop monopoly if
    > it had been easy to build cross-platform apps. That is absolutely
    > right, and there is no more important way to understand the monopoly.


    OS/2 was being ruined internally by IBM. cross platform APIs existed
    back in the mid to late 90s but were immature. Look at the joke that is
    now the JAVA UI mess. You can hardly blame MS. And why should they write
    their apps cross platform anyway?

    And again what monopoly? I was programming OS/2 system which were used
    widely in European banks, call centers etc. Not a wiff of Windows in
    many of them.

    >
    > The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    > cross-platform development tools and applications.


    I like to think that OSS is getting a foothold in the most important
    market, Windows, because of these things. More people are writing good
    quality apps because its worth their effort because of the hugs amounts
    of Windows users who will adopt GOOD sw as proven by the likes of, err,
    Firefox. And this is therefore good for us Linux users as we get better
    apps too. OSS apps which do not confirm to quality standards and UI
    guidelines will be ignored by the masses and no one wants to write and
    support a dead duck.

  6. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:YzJEk.46206$De7.6838@bignews7.bellsouth.net.. .

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Joe Potter belched out


    > this bit o' wisdom:


    >


    >> The problem is that your imaginary little program that you FTP across


    >> platforms is useless. C (and eventually C++) has often been called a


    >> "portable assembler" because the language itself supports very little. If


    >> your imaginary program is nothing more than some command line app that
    >> let's


    >> people enter some text and displays some text on the screen then there's
    >> no


    >> problem using any compiler.


    >


    > You're lumping in C++ as a "portable assembler"? Crazy dude!


    Many would agree that the "C" language is not much more than a portable
    assembler. Primarily because the language itself (without external
    libraries) lacks any formal definition for high level concepts found in
    other languages.

    Since C++ is a decendent of "C" I lumped it in. Some still feel it's a
    portable assembler (Google it yourself) but it's certainly more advanced and
    capable than C was.


    >> But that's not what a real program does. Programs do things like create


    >> threads, run in graphical mode, process mouse input, output data to a


    >> printer, connect to a database and all sorts of other things that are NOT


    >> supported by C/C++.


    >


    > I think you mean "not provided by Standard C++ libraries".


    Correct. It's not defined by the language itself. Support for this is
    operating system and library specific.


    >> It's not a matter of being limited in "thinking" - it's a matter of the


    >> *DEVELOPER* (not the compiler) making sure the code is cross platform.
    >> Even


    >> today, unless someone uses a cross-platform toolkit (and doesn't go
    >> outside


    >> of the toolkit) you can't write a meaningful C/C++ program that you can
    >> run


    >> on different platforms by simply FTP-ing the source to another machine
    >> and


    >> compiling it. It just doesn't work that way unless you're talking about


    >> "hello world" applications.


    >


    > Or unless you think first, then code, then test and debug on multiple


    > platforms.


    Yes. The *developer* needs to think first then code. The notion that if
    someone wrote an app using Turbo C++ that it would just magically work on
    Unix is wrong. There's nothing about Turbo C++ over the MS compiler (or most
    any other compiler at the time) that provides special "cross platform"
    capabilities. Anything that was standard "C/C++" would pretty much compile
    anywhere. If you went outside of standard C/C++ then it was up to the
    developer to make sure it could run cross platform.


    >>> I don't know whether all the history Rex presents is correct, but he is


    >>> dead on that Microsoft couldn't have gotten a desktop monopoly if it had


    >>> been easy to build cross-platform apps. That is absolutely right, and


    >>> there is no more important way to understand the monopoly.


    >>


    >> You simply don't have a clue about software development. Even today you


    >> can't write cross platform apps in C/C++ without a toolkit or framework.


    >> Unless it's some useless "hello world" application.


    >


    > I'll have to call "fool" on that one. You can write a /lot/ of useful


    > cross-platform C/C++ code that has nothing to do with threads, GUIs,


    > printers, audio, or databases.


    I'm not claiming otherwise. Many apps (not all) they need to use OS specific
    features that aren't covered by the formal C/C++ language. Once developers
    start going outside of the C/C++ standard runtime using Turbo C++ instead of
    the compiler from Watcom, Liant, etc isn't going to make a difference. And
    if they stay completely within the formal language spec then it pretty much
    will be cross platform regardless of what compiler they use.

    My point is that because someone uses "Turbo C++" that this does not
    guarantee cross platform compatiblity any more than using any other
    compiler.


    >>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>> cross-platform


    >>> development tools and applications.


    >>


    >> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >> platform


    >> tools have existed for decades.


    >


    > True. What's been missing is the other platforms, which have finally


    > become serious competition to Microsoft's platform.


    When there's few platforms then having code that's portable to other OS's is
    less important than it is today.


    > --


    > Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.





  7. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e2a354$0$16898$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...

    > Joe Potter wrote:


    >


    >>


    >> "Matt" wrote in message


    >> news:4fwEk.246$qg5.187@fe101.usenetserver.com...


    >>> Joe Potter wrote:


    >>>> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message


    >>>>


    > news:d79e36fd-02b6-45e9-972d-60aece0a354f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...


    >>>> On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Hadron wrote:


    >>>>>> Matt writes:


    >>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:


    >>>>>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source


    >>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]


    >>>>>>>>


    > http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...s/index.cfm?bl...


    >>>>>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.


    >>>>>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to


    >>>>>>> programming languages.


    >>>>> Actually, that was one of Microsoft's biggest concerns about Borland.


    >>>>> Borland not only made sure that they were source code compatible with


    >>>>> BSD UNIX (Linux wasn't out until later),


    >>>>


    >>>> Nonsense. It's not your "compiler" that is "source code compaitble"
    >>>> with


    >>>> Unix. If cross-platform code is needed (re: runs on Windows and Unix
    >>>> and


    >>>> ....) then it's the developers job to make sure the code they write is


    >>>> source code compatible across platforms. It's the code being written,


    >>>> NOT the compiler that is source code compatible.


    >>>>


    >>


    >> You clearly don't program for a living and your ignorance in this subject


    >> shows. You write a bunch of nonsense that might sound good to you and to


    >> someone who is equally unfamiliar with the subject but it's still a bunch


    >> of nonsense.


    >>


    >


    > Actually, no, it isn't. You could write crossplatform code with it. You
    > had


    > to avoid several things non-portable, but it was possible


    >


    >>>>


    >>>>> This was probably one of the reasons that Microsoft targeted Borland,


    >>>>> because Microsoft wanted total control of the desktop. Borland


    >>>>> offering developers the ability to take UNIX code and compile it on


    >>>>> Turbo C or Turbo C++, left the door wide open for MS-DOS and Windows


    >>>>> applications that ran as well, or better, on UNIX.


    >>>>


    >>>> Complete rubish. Turbo C++ **NEVER** supported or ran on Unix. Turbo


    >>>> C++ was a DOS (then later Windows) ONLY product.


    >>>


    >>>


    >>> You can't conceive that somebody would want to use Turbo C++ to write a


    >>> C++ program and run it on DOS, then ftp the source code to some other


    >>> machine with a different OS and a different compiler and expect the code


    >>> to run---or that somebody would want to take C++ code from a Unix
    >>> machine


    >>> and use it with Turbo on a DOS box. I don't like to think that there are


    >>> many programmers that limited in their thinking.


    >>


    >> If this is all they want to do then it would work just as well with the


    >> compiler from Microsoft, Watcom or any other compiler that existed at the


    >> time. All of these compilers supported that ANSI standard for C and C++
    >> so


    >> there's no reason your imaginary program wouldn't work.


    >>


    >> The problem is that your imaginary little program that you FTP across


    >> platforms is useless. C (and eventually C++) has often been called a


    >> "portable assembler" because the language itself supports very little. If


    >> your imaginary program is nothing more than some command line app that


    >> let's people enter some text and displays some text on the screen then


    >> there's no problem using any compiler.


    >>


    >> But that's not what a real program does. Programs do things like create


    >> threads, run in graphical mode, process mouse input, output data to a


    >> printer, connect to a database and all sorts of other things that are NOT


    >> supported by C/C++.


    >


    > And you keep forgetting about the time frame this is about.


    > At that time, there were no threads. There also was no "graphical mode".


    "Threads" in this context are an example of a programming concept that is
    not supported directly by C/C++. Threads are not part of ANSI standard so
    code that takes advantage of (for example) threads is non-standard. Another
    non-ANSI programming concept often used with C/C++ are shared libraries
    which are OS specific and there is no standard/ANSI/portable way of dealing
    with this either.

    And for the record, v4 of Turbo C++ was released in 1993 and it did support
    GUI apps, Windows apps, threads, shared libararies and things like DPMI (DOS
    protected mode interface) so it's not like apps written with Turbo C++ were
    going to be portable unless the *developer* made sure they were.



    > It was DOS times, for crying out loud.


    Perhaps for you it was but MS Windows 3.0 came out in 1990 and Win 3.1 was
    out in early 1992. Besides Windows apps there were many graphical apps like
    Harvard Graphics, flight-sims, games, image editors, etc.



    > It was quite simple then to write crossplatform code, and your foot
    > stomping


    > will not change any of that


    I'm not saying that it couldn't be done or that it was terribly difficult to
    do. But the notion that if you wrote your app with Turbo C++ it was just a
    "compile away" from running on Unix but if you wrote an app with the MS
    compiler that you were somehow tied to DOS is ridiculous.





    >


    > < snip more rubbish >


    > --


    > Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


    >




  8. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e2b382$0$16894$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    > Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>
    >>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>
    >>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>> platform tools have existed for decades.

    >>
    >>
    >> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    >> 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and Apple.

    >
    > Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist then


    Well /obviously/ you don't have a clue since you believe that QT is the only
    cross platform framework that exists. Since you are clueless here's a free
    clue for you... wxWidgets (known at wxWindows at the time) has existed since
    1992.

    >
    > That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist


    Another brilliant deduction from the person who thinks that just because an
    app was written using Turbo C++ that this app is now magically portable to
    other platforms by virtue of Turbo C++. The "developer" doesn't have to do
    anything... just write it with Turbo C++ and it will run everywhere.



    > --
    > Avoid reality at all costs.
    >




  9. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    "Joe Potter" writes:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48e2b382$0$16894$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >> Matt wrote:
    >>
    >>> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>>
    >>>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>>> platform tools have existed for decades.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    >>> 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and Apple.

    >>
    >> Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist then

    >
    > Well /obviously/ you don't have a clue since you believe that QT is the only
    > cross platform framework that exists. Since you are clueless here's a free
    > clue for you... wxWidgets (known at wxWindows at the time) has existed since
    > 1992.
    >
    >>
    >> That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist

    >
    > Another brilliant deduction from the person who thinks that just because an
    > app was written using Turbo C++ that this app is now magically portable to
    > other platforms by virtue of Turbo C++. The "developer" doesn't have to do
    > anything... just write it with Turbo C++ and it will run everywhere.


    Peter will never admit he is wrong. But he is reasonably knowledgeable
    when he wants to be. Most of the cross platform efforts back then were
    garbage. People wanted to be able to write in Win32 and have magically
    compile and run on other platforms - not to have to learn a half arsed,
    half finished "in development" API which might not be supported in 3
    years. I know of 2 companies back then who actually created their own
    win32 layer so that things could compile and run on Linux and OS/2
    rather than commit to someone elses API layer which might not have
    existed a short while later. If you want to debate on this with someone
    who knows just enough to make you cringe then chat to Linonut about it
    .....


    --
    "I program Windows systems yes. But I am not a Windows user."
    Peter Koehlmann, COLA.

  10. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Joe Potter wrote:

    >
    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48e2b382$0$16894$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >> Matt wrote:
    >>
    >>> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>>
    >>>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>>> platform tools have existed for decades.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    >>> 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and Apple.

    >>
    >> Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist then

    >
    > Well /obviously/ you don't have a clue since you believe that QT is the
    > only cross platform framework that exists. Since you are clueless here's a
    > free clue for you... wxWidgets (known at wxWindows at the time) has
    > existed since 1992.
    >


    "Matt" wrote "and Apple"
    The port to Mac started *much* later.
    1995 there was no crossplatform framework which supports all three major GUI
    platforms. And even those supporting windows/unix were just soso.

    >>
    >> That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist

    >
    > Another brilliant deduction from the person who thinks that just because
    > an app was written using Turbo C++ that this app is now magically portable
    > to other platforms by virtue of Turbo C++. The "developer" doesn't have to
    > do anything... just write it with Turbo C++ and it will run everywhere.
    >


    You might try to actually provide the Msg-ID for that claim.
    Otherwise people could come to the conclusion that you arte making up
    your "facts" out of full cloth

    >
    >> --
    >> Avoid reality at all costs.
    >>


    And your incredibly ****ty "newsreader" from MS does not even snip
    signatures.
    Figures that you would use such sub-standard / subperforming "software"
    --
    The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    the day they start making vacuum cleaners.


  11. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Hadron wrote:

    > "Joe Potter" writes:
    >
    >> "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:48e2b382$0$16894$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >>> Matt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>>>> platform tools have existed for decades.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    >>>> 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and
    >>>> Apple.
    >>>
    >>> Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist
    >>> then

    >>
    >> Well /obviously/ you don't have a clue since you believe that QT is the
    >> only cross platform framework that exists. Since you are clueless here's
    >> a free clue for you... wxWidgets (known at wxWindows at the time) has
    >> existed since 1992.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist

    >>
    >> Another brilliant deduction from the person who thinks that just because
    >> an app was written using Turbo C++ that this app is now magically
    >> portable to other platforms by virtue of Turbo C++. The "developer"
    >> doesn't have to do anything... just write it with Turbo C++ and it will
    >> run everywhere.

    >
    > Peter will never admit he is wrong.


    You mean "from the person who thinks..."? That is just another Hadron from
    Joe Potter. Hust as you do, he made up what was said.
    Putting words in peoples mouth is obviously your only way to somehow
    magically "win" a debate

    > But he is reasonably knowledgeable when he wants to be. Most of the cross
    > platform efforts back then were garbage. People wanted to be able to write
    > in Win32 and have magically compile and run on other platforms - not to
    > have to learn a half arsed,
    > half finished "in development" API which might not be supported in 3
    > years. I know of 2 companies back then who actually created their own
    > win32 layer so that things could compile and run on Linux and OS/2
    > rather than commit to someone elses API layer which might not have
    > existed a short while later.


    Fiew enough major apps have been written with wxwidgets.

    > If you want to debate on this with someone
    > who knows just enough to make you cringe then chat to Linonut about it


    And true to Hadron Quark, he brings in a person which has not even
    participated in the thread. But at least you have not "modified" his handle
    --
    Only two things are infinite,
    the Universe and Stupidity.
    And I'm not quite sure about the former.
    - Albert Einstein


  12. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e38a4a$0$6609$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    > Joe Potter wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:48e2b382$0$16894$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >>> Matt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>>>> platform tools have existed for decades.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    >>>> 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and
    >>>> Apple.
    >>>
    >>> Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist
    >>> then

    >>
    >> Well /obviously/ you don't have a clue since you believe that QT is the
    >> only cross platform framework that exists. Since you are clueless here's
    >> a
    >> free clue for you... wxWidgets (known at wxWindows at the time) has
    >> existed since 1992.
    >>

    >
    > "Matt" wrote "and Apple"
    > The port to Mac started *much* later.
    > 1995 there was no crossplatform framework which supports all three major
    > GUI
    > platforms. And even those supporting windows/unix were just soso.


    The definition of "cross platform" is that it works on multiple platforms...
    not /all/ platforms. Fact is that wxWindows/wxWidgets was a "cross
    platform" toolkit. Because it didn't support /every/ platform available at
    that time doesn't change this fact.


    >>>
    >>> That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist

    >>
    >> Another brilliant deduction from the person who thinks that just because
    >> an app was written using Turbo C++ that this app is now magically
    >> portable
    >> to other platforms by virtue of Turbo C++. The "developer" doesn't have
    >> to
    >> do anything... just write it with Turbo C++ and it will run everywhere.
    >>

    >
    > You might try to actually provide the Msg-ID for that claim.
    > Otherwise people could come to the conclusion that you arte making up
    > your "facts" out of full cloth


    Good. Then you do agree that because an app was written in Turbo C++ that it
    wasn't magically cross platform any more than an app written using a
    different compiler.


    >>
    >>> --
    >>> Avoid reality at all costs.
    >>>

    >
    > And your incredibly ****ty "newsreader" from MS does not even snip
    > signatures.
    > Figures that you would use such sub-standard / subperforming "software"
    > --
    > The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    > the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
    >




  13. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Joe Potter belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >
    >> True. What's been missing is the other platforms, which have finally
    >> become serious competition to Microsoft's platform.

    >
    > When there's few platforms then having code that's portable to other OS's is
    > less important than it is today.


    It was important back then, too, but the UNIX machines of the day were
    too pricey for consumers, and the Ataris were a bit too small.

    Not to mention that the compilers cost as much as the hardware.

    --
    Go 'way! You're bothering me!

  14. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Joe Potter belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Threads" in this context are an example of a programming concept that is
    > not supported directly by C/C++. Threads are not part of ANSI standard so
    > code that takes advantage of (for example) threads is non-standard.


    POSIX threads. Ported to Windows, too. Not part of C/C++, but
    portable.

    > Another
    > non-ANSI programming concept often used with C/C++ are shared libraries
    > which are OS specific and there is no standard/ANSI/portable way of dealing
    > with this either.


    Yes there is. There's a GNU way.

    Libtool.

    http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/a..._68.html#SEC68

    Libtool takes care of all the peculiarities of creating, linking and
    loading shared and static libraries across a great number of
    platforms, providing a uniform command line interface to the
    developer. By using Libtool to manage your project libraries, you
    only need to concern yourself with Libtool's interface: when someone
    else builds your project on a platform with a different library
    architecture, Libtool invokes that platform's compiler and linker
    with the correct environment and command line switches. It will
    install libraries and library using binaries according to the
    conventions of the host platform, and follows that platform's rules
    for library versioning and library interdependencies.

    --
    Some men are so interested in their wives' continued happiness that they
    hire detectives to find out the reason for it.

  15. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> If you want to debate on this with someone
    >> who knows just enough to make you cringe then chat to Linonut about it

    >
    > And true to Hadron Quark, he brings in a person which has not even
    > participated in the thread. But at least you have not "modified" his handle


    Hadron's just jealous because I do not bork my systems so that tuxguitar
    won't install properly.

    --
    Kissing your hand may make you feel very good, but a diamond and
    sapphire bracelet lasts for ever.
    -- Anita Loos, "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"

  16. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Joe Potter wrote:

    >
    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48e38a4a$0$6609$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    >> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >>> news:48e2b382$0$16894$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >>>> Matt wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>>>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>>>>> platform tools have existed for decades.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would
    >>>>> in 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and
    >>>>> Apple.
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist
    >>>> then
    >>>
    >>> Well /obviously/ you don't have a clue since you believe that QT is the
    >>> only cross platform framework that exists. Since you are clueless here's
    >>> a
    >>> free clue for you... wxWidgets (known at wxWindows at the time) has
    >>> existed since 1992.
    >>>

    >>
    >> "Matt" wrote "and Apple"
    >> The port to Mac started *much* later.
    >> 1995 there was no crossplatform framework which supports all three major
    >> GUI
    >> platforms. And even those supporting windows/unix were just soso.

    >
    > The definition of "cross platform" is that it works on multiple
    > platforms...
    > not /all/ platforms. Fact is that wxWindows/wxWidgets was a "cross
    > platform" toolkit. Because it didn't support /every/ platform available at
    > that time doesn't change this fact.


    I don't care for your reducing the "platforms" to windows/unix only, just to
    be still somehow "right"

    >
    >>>>
    >>>> That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist
    >>>
    >>> Another brilliant deduction from the person who thinks that just because
    >>> an app was written using Turbo C++ that this app is now magically
    >>> portable
    >>> to other platforms by virtue of Turbo C++. The "developer" doesn't have
    >>> to
    >>> do anything... just write it with Turbo C++ and it will run everywhere.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You might try to actually provide the Msg-ID for that claim.
    >> Otherwise people could come to the conclusion that you arte making up
    >> your "facts" out of full cloth

    >
    > Good. Then you do agree that because an app was written in Turbo C++ that
    > it wasn't magically cross platform any more than an app written using a
    > different compiler.


    So you are admitting that you simply made up your claim.
    In other words, you lied, pure and simple

    >>>> --
    >>>> Avoid reality at all costs.
    >>>>

    >>
    >> And your incredibly ****ty "newsreader" from MS does not even snip
    >> signatures.
    >> Figures that you would use such sub-standard / subperforming "software"
    >> --
    >> The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    >> the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
    >>


    See? You are using outrageous garbage as "nerwsreader". And you still want
    to be taken serious?
    --
    Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
    a trail of destruction behind it.


  17. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e3a329$0$6598$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    > Joe Potter wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:48e38a4a$0$6609$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    >>> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >>>> news:48e2b382$0$16894$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >>>>> Matt wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    >>>>>>>> cross-platform development tools and applications.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross
    >>>>>>> platform tools have existed for decades.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would
    >>>>>> in 1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and
    >>>>>> Apple.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, it would /obviously/ have been QT0.0001. QT did not even exist
    >>>>> then
    >>>>
    >>>> Well /obviously/ you don't have a clue since you believe that QT is the
    >>>> only cross platform framework that exists. Since you are clueless
    >>>> here's
    >>>> a
    >>>> free clue for you... wxWidgets (known at wxWindows at the time) has
    >>>> existed since 1992.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> "Matt" wrote "and Apple"
    >>> The port to Mac started *much* later.
    >>> 1995 there was no crossplatform framework which supports all three major
    >>> GUI
    >>> platforms. And even those supporting windows/unix were just soso.

    >>
    >> The definition of "cross platform" is that it works on multiple
    >> platforms...
    >> not /all/ platforms. Fact is that wxWindows/wxWidgets was a "cross
    >> platform" toolkit. Because it didn't support /every/ platform available
    >> at
    >> that time doesn't change this fact.

    >
    > I don't care for your reducing the "platforms" to windows/unix only, just
    > to
    > be still somehow "right"


    And I don't care about your own personal definition of cross-platform that
    mandates it includes Windows, Apple, Unix and Linux. Cross platform is
    defined as:

    - "Cross-platform (also known as multi-platform) is a term used in computing
    to refer to computer programs, operating systems, computer languages,
    programming languages, or other computer software and their implementations
    which can be made to work on multiple computer platforms[1][2].
    "Cross-platform" and "multi-platform" both refer to the idea that a given
    piece of computer software is able to be run on more than one computer
    platform."

    Notice that it's simply "more than one" and not
    Apple+Linux+Unix+Windows+whatever just in order to satisfy your strawman
    argument.



    >>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That "Joe Potter" character is just another MS apologist
    >>>>
    >>>> Another brilliant deduction from the person who thinks that just
    >>>> because
    >>>> an app was written using Turbo C++ that this app is now magically
    >>>> portable
    >>>> to other platforms by virtue of Turbo C++. The "developer" doesn't have
    >>>> to
    >>>> do anything... just write it with Turbo C++ and it will run everywhere.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You might try to actually provide the Msg-ID for that claim.
    >>> Otherwise people could come to the conclusion that you arte making up
    >>> your "facts" out of full cloth

    >>
    >> Good. Then you do agree that because an app was written in Turbo C++ that
    >> it wasn't magically cross platform any more than an app written using a
    >> different compiler.

    >
    > So you are admitting that you simply made up your claim.
    > In other words, you lied, pure and simple


    You must be thinking of yourself when you lied and made up your claim that I
    must have been thinking of "QT0.0001. QT did not even exist then."

    This is an example of *you* making up **** and claiming that it's what some
    other person said?


    And just to re-iterate, you were dead wrong. But I guess that in order to
    save face and "win" you'll find something stupid to nit-pick over.

    > And you keep forgetting about the time frame this is about.

    No, it is you who thinks this was 1986.

    > At that time, there were no threads.

    Bull****. Threads existed long before the mid 1990s.

    > There also was no "graphical mode".

    That's why Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 were released YEARS before that. Not
    to mention all of the native graphical apps that ran directly in DOS.

    > It was DOS times, for crying out loud.

    Keep crying. By the mid 1990's DOS was quickly losing to Windows and there
    was no turning back.

    > It was quite simple then to write crossplatform code, and your foot
    > stomping will not change any of that

    Keep stomping your feet and telling us how the mid 1990's were the DOS days
    and threads and graphical apps didn't exist yet.



    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Avoid reality at all costs.
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>> And your incredibly ****ty "newsreader" from MS does not even snip
    >>> signatures.
    >>> Figures that you would use such sub-standard / subperforming "software"
    >>> --
    >>> The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    >>> the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
    >>>

    >
    > See? You are using outrageous garbage as "nerwsreader". And you still want
    > to be taken serious?
    > --
    > Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
    > a trail of destruction behind it.
    >




  18. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns


    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:WNMEk.51410$XB4.13703@bignews9.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Joe Potter belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> "Threads" in this context are an example of a programming concept that is
    >> not supported directly by C/C++. Threads are not part of ANSI standard so
    >> code that takes advantage of (for example) threads is non-standard.

    >
    > POSIX threads. Ported to Windows, too. Not part of C/C++, but
    > portable.


    Yes - but that's the point. (Read on)

    >> Another
    >> non-ANSI programming concept often used with C/C++ are shared libraries
    >> which are OS specific and there is no standard/ANSI/portable way of
    >> dealing
    >> with this either.

    >
    > Yes there is. There's a GNU way.
    >
    > Libtool.


    Great for libtool but it's still non-standard C or C++ code and it's OS
    specific. With the right libraries you can basically do just about anything
    with C/C++ but it's still not standard and it still won't work on another
    platform without those libraries. There's nothing special about the Borland
    C++ compilers (which is how this entire thread got started) that gave
    developers any sort of special benefit when it came to cross-platform apps.

    Apps written strictly to comply with ANSI C/C++ would basically work with
    any compiler and if you did something like POSIX threads then you needed
    some sort of native pthread library for your platform. It has absolutely
    nothing to do with Borland C++.






    > http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/a..._68.html#SEC68
    >
    > Libtool takes care of all the peculiarities of creating, linking and
    > loading shared and static libraries across a great number of
    > platforms, providing a uniform command line interface to the
    > developer. By using Libtool to manage your project libraries, you
    > only need to concern yourself with Libtool's interface: when someone
    > else builds your project on a platform with a different library
    > architecture, Libtool invokes that platform's compiler and linker
    > with the correct environment and command line switches. It will
    > install libraries and library using binaries according to the
    > conventions of the host platform, and follows that platform's rules
    > for library versioning and library interdependencies.
    >
    > --
    > Some men are so interested in their wives' continued happiness that they
    > hire detectives to find out the reason for it.




  19. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns


    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:KIMEk.51408$XB4.45586@bignews9.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Joe Potter belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>
    >>> True. What's been missing is the other platforms, which have finally
    >>> become serious competition to Microsoft's platform.

    >>
    >> When there's few platforms then having code that's portable to other OS's
    >> is
    >> less important than it is today.

    >
    > It was important back then, too, but the UNIX machines of the day were
    > too pricey for consumers, and the Ataris were a bit too small.


    The hardware to run Unix was generally pricey but the Unix OS itself wasn't
    cheap either.

    > Not to mention that the compilers cost as much as the hardware.


    Borland's C++ compilers were successful because they were pretty good but
    also because they were relatively cheap. In 1996 Turbo C++ had a list price
    of $129 and the more commercially oriented Burland C++ had a list price of
    $499. Not cheap by todays standards but 12 years ago that was a good chunk
    of change. It probably cost almost as much as MS-Office.

    Then again, the compilers for Solaris cost much more than this at the time.


    >
    > --
    > Go 'way! You're bothering me!




  20. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Joe Potter belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    >> Libtool.

    >
    > Great for libtool but it's still non-standard C or C++ code and it's OS
    > specific. With the right libraries you can basically do just about anything
    > with C/C++ but it's still not standard and it still won't work on another
    > platform without those libraries. There's nothing special about the Borland
    > C++ compilers (which is how this entire thread got started) that gave
    > developers any sort of special benefit when it came to cross-platform apps.


    Yeah, I kind of agree with you about the borland, but I starting
    ignoring that part early on as being uninteresting.

    > Apps written strictly to comply with ANSI C/C++ would basically work with
    > any compiler and if you did something like POSIX threads then you needed
    > some sort of native pthread library for your platform. It has absolutely
    > nothing to do with Borland C++.


    Anybody still use Borland C++?

    We got roped into using Borland C++ Builder 4, and I about crapped my
    pants when I got into it and realized that it was Delphi under the
    covers.

    And we're still maintaining apps built with that crap.

    --
    "Life is like a buffet; it's not good but there's plenty of it."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast