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

This is a discussion on [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns - Linux ; Matt writes: > Ezekiel wrote: >> "Matt" wrote in message > >>> So it was unreasonable for the developer to expect the VC++ makers >>> to implement the standard for-loop syntax and semantics? >> >> Yawn. All compilers at that ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 81 to 98 of 98

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

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

    Matt writes:

    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> "Matt" wrote in message

    >
    >>> So it was unreasonable for the developer to expect the VC++ makers
    >>> to implement the standard for-loop syntax and semantics?

    >>
    >> Yawn. All compilers at that time had some sort of conformancy
    >> issue. (Still true today.) Most compilers will often leave the
    >> default behavior the same for compatibility reasons so that
    >> applications continue to compile if someone upgrades their
    >> compiler. Often there is a switch or env-var to control the behavior
    >> of something like this. Most compilers also have a "STRICT_ANSI"
    >> mode where all non-standard language extensions are disable and the
    >> compiler does it's best to only allow ANSI conventions. And Borland,
    >> Watcom and all of the other compilers were no different. And if the
    >> biggest problem that somebody has when porting their app to another
    >> platform/compiler is a minor difference in "for-loops" then it's a
    >> damn good week at work.
    >>
    >>
    >>> As a practical matter, yes, it was unreasonable, if you understood
    >>> their general hostility toward standards not controlled by them.
    >>> They implemented the syntax, but with the wrong semantics, and did
    >>> that for no technical reason.

    >>
    >> "did that for no technical reason." - It's called a bug.

    >
    >
    > Nope. They could have had somebody fix it and double and triple check
    > it in a week. Instead they left it in for quite a few years. They
    > chose not to fix it. If you knew something about compiler
    > construction you would laugh at the idea that there was any difficulty
    > in implementing standard for-loop syntax and semantics.


    Hmm. I'll take your word for that since its more than 20 years ago I did
    compiler courses ... (they did them at good Universities back then
    Andrew if you're reading).

    >
    > I believe they said they didn't fix it because it would break a lot of
    > old programs with old incorrect code. So they left it that way, and
    > more incorrect code piled up.


    Poor excuse since they could pragma the old way and make the proper way
    the default.

    > Perfectly consistent with wanting the whole pie, to hell with ISO
    > standards.


    You mean like here:

    http://boycottiso.wikidot.com/

    As supported by Roy Schestowitz, Homer and most of the COLA faithful?

    Really. I jest not.


    > Finally they implemented the standard form as an option set by a flag.
    >
    >
    >> Borland also had "wrong semantics" (aka bugs) in their compiler for
    >> no technical reason other than the people who write the compiler are
    >> human which means the software will have bugs. Does gcc have any
    >> bugs?

    >
    >
    > What do you think? Of course it doesn't.


    Very funny.



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

    Hadron wrote:

    >> I believe they said they didn't fix it because it would break a lot of
    >> old programs with old incorrect code. So they left it that way, and
    >> more incorrect code piled up.

    >
    > Poor excuse since they could pragma the old way and make the proper way
    > the default.



    Come on, you don't expect the average Windows programmer to mess with
    something like that after joining the herd:

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE


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

    Matt writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >>> I believe they said they didn't fix it because it would break a lot of
    >>> old programs with old incorrect code. So they left it that way, and
    >>> more incorrect code piled up.

    >>
    >> Poor excuse since they could pragma the old way and make the proper way
    >> the default.

    >
    >
    > Come on, you don't expect the average Windows programmer to mess with
    > something like that after joining the herd:
    >
    > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE


    You're either trolling or incredibly ignorant of C/C++ programming under
    Windows.

    I personally never came across any system which did not support
    something as basic as a for loop and I smell a rat here.




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


    "Matt" wrote in message
    news:EWQFk.438$OY7.194@newsfe06.iad...
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> "Matt" wrote in message

    >
    >>> So it was unreasonable for the developer to expect the VC++ makers to
    >>> implement the standard for-loop syntax and semantics?

    >>
    >> Yawn. All compilers at that time had some sort of conformancy issue.
    >> (Still true today.) Most compilers will often leave the default behavior
    >> the same for compatibility reasons so that applications continue to
    >> compile if someone upgrades their compiler. Often there is a switch or
    >> env-var to control the behavior of something like this. Most compilers
    >> also have a "STRICT_ANSI" mode where all non-standard language extensions
    >> are disable and the compiler does it's best to only allow ANSI
    >> conventions. And Borland, Watcom and all of the other compilers were no
    >> different. And if the biggest problem that somebody has when porting
    >> their app to another platform/compiler is a minor difference in
    >> "for-loops" then it's a damn good week at work.
    >>
    >>
    >>> As a practical matter, yes, it was unreasonable, if you understood their
    >>> general hostility toward standards not controlled by them. They
    >>> implemented the syntax, but with the wrong semantics, and did that for
    >>> no technical reason.

    >>
    >> "did that for no technical reason." - It's called a bug.

    >
    >
    > Nope. They could have had somebody fix it and double and triple check it
    > in a week. Instead they left it in for quite a few years.


    Wrong again. It's called a "bug" and all compilers have bugs. There is *NO*
    compiler that is 100% ANSI conformant. Why does gcc/g++ have bugs and why
    aren't those "double and triple checked and fixed in a week?"


    > They chose not to fix it. If you knew something about compiler
    > construction you would laugh at the idea that there was any difficulty in
    > implementing standard for-loop syntax and semantics.


    It's actually a "scoping" bug and a not for-loop symantic bug. The
    MS-compiler (unless run with the STRICT_ANSI switch) scopes variables within
    brackets ({}) whereas in a for-loop variable scoping exists within the
    for-loop itself so the iterator in a for loop should not be accessible to
    code below it.

    If you knew anything about programming you wouldn't cling to your silly
    notion that this minor bug (yes.. it is MINOR and it's a BUG) - that this
    minor bug somehow "locks people in" to using the MS compiler and prevents
    them from writing cross platform code. That's simply ridiculous.


    > I believe they said they didn't fix it because it would break a lot of old
    > programs with old incorrect code. So they left it that way, and more
    > incorrect code piled up. Perfectly consistent with wanting the whole pie,
    > to hell with ISO standards.


    Yes, they left it in there unless people use the "STRICT_ANSI" switch in
    which case it will generate an error. Hint for you... lots of compilers
    leave "bugs" like this in because compilers do need to work with old code
    that was written with a previous version of the compiler. The important
    thing is that the compiler also accept the new/correct format as well. Sun
    C++ 5.0 faced the same issues and so did Gnu C++.


    > Finally they implemented the standard form as an option set by a flag.


    It's called backward compatibility. A minor "bug" like this certainly does
    *NOT* lock people in to MS-Windows by somehow making it impossible to port
    apps to other platforms.

    >
    >> Borland also had "wrong semantics" (aka bugs) in their compiler for no
    >> technical reason other than the people who write the compiler are human
    >> which means the software will have bugs. Does gcc have any bugs?

    >
    >
    > What do you think? Of course it doesn't.


    If you actually think that gcc does not have any bugs then you are either
    clueless or completely ignorant.







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

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

    >
    >
    >> Finally they implemented the standard form as an option set by a flag.

    >
    > It's called backward compatibility. A minor "bug" like this certainly does
    > *NOT* lock people in to MS-Windows by somehow making it impossible to port
    > apps to other platforms.
    >>
    >>> Borland also had "wrong semantics" (aka bugs) in their compiler for no
    >>> technical reason other than the people who write the compiler are human
    >>> which means the software will have bugs. Does gcc have any bugs?

    >>
    >> What do you think? Of course it doesn't.

    >
    > If you actually think that gcc does not have any bugs then you are either
    > clueless or completely ignorant.


    I have to say I agree (although I wouldn't use the disparaging words)
    with Zeke on this one.

    I'm also finding that gcc 4.3 is catching a lot of our bad coding
    habits that neither gcc 4.1 nor Visual Studio 7 emitted a peep about.

    --
    But the greatest Electrical Pioneer of them all was Thomas Edison, who was a
    brilliant inventor despite the fact that he had little formal education and
    lived in New Jersey. Edison's first major invention in 1877, was the
    phonograph, which could soon be found in thousands of American homes, where
    it basically sat until 1923, when the record was invented. But Edison's
    greatest achievement came in 1879, when he invented the electric company.
    Edison's design was a brilliant adaptation of the simple electrical circuit:
    the electric company sends electricity through a wire to a customer, then
    immediately gets the electricity back through another wire, then (this is
    the brilliant part) sends it right back to the customer again.

    This means that an electric company can sell a customer the same batch of
    electricity thousands of times a day and never get caught, since very few
    customers take the time to examine their electricity closely. In fact the
    last year any new electricity was generated in the United States was 1937;
    the electric companies have been merely re-selling it ever since, which is
    why they have so much free time to apply for rate increases.
    -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

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

    [snips]

    On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:54:05 -0500, Matt wrote:

    > Visual C++ has become pretty much standards-compliant. Nowadays it is
    > easy to build a C++ program to run on Linux, Windows, and Mac with very
    > little need for conditional compilation. I believe that that came true
    > only about five years ago, about the time MS started giving away their
    > compiler.


    Try it in C, though. Particularly C99 with MS's compilers.


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


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:m54tr5-6es.ln1@spanky.work.net...
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:54:05 -0500, Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Visual C++ has become pretty much standards-compliant. Nowadays it is
    >> easy to build a C++ program to run on Linux, Windows, and Mac with very
    >> little need for conditional compilation. I believe that that came true
    >> only about five years ago, about the time MS started giving away their
    >> compiler.

    >
    > Try it in C, though. Particularly C99 with MS's compilers.


    The MS compiler only supports a few of the C99 features. (long long variadic
    macros, restrict, pragma's etc) but it's generally lacking most of the
    features. MS isn't doing much work on the C-compiler and seems to believe
    that it's the C++ compiler that matters. GCC has better support for C99 but
    several of the C99 features aren't actually implemented in gcc (
    http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html ).

    Other than legacy C code (which is unlikely to use C99 constructs) why isn't
    new code being written in C++? Most of our code is now written in C++ which
    provides several benefits (strict type-checking, etc) than a C-compiler. Is
    there a reason why you're not writing new code (even if it's C-style code)
    and not compiling it with a C++ compiler?



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

    [snips]

    On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:26:01 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > Other than legacy C code (which is unlikely to use C99 constructs) why
    > isn't new code being written in C++?


    Lots of reasons, but the simplest reason is you're more likely to find a
    C compiler which comes sufficiently close to ISO conformance (C89/90, at
    least, which is the standard virtually all C code is actually written to)
    on a given platform than you are to find a C++ compiler which can be
    relied upon.

    > C-compiler. Is there a reason why you're not writing new code (even if
    > it's C-style code) and not compiling it with a C++ compiler?


    I don't write "C-style" code; I write either C code or C++ code. The
    languages are sufficiently different, but often in subtle ways, that if
    you don't keep straight what language you're working in, it is very
    likely to bite you at some point.

    Simple example:

    char *ptr = malloc(10);

    This is canonical C form. It doesn't work *at all* in C++ mode; C++
    disallows assignment from void * to char *. The obvious solution, to
    cast the result, fixes the problem in C++-land, but is universally
    regarded, by folks who actually grok C, as being one of the more
    boneheadedly stupid things one can do to C code, as it can mask
    significant failure conditions *and* let the compiler off the hook from
    emitting diagnostics about it.

    Or try sizeof('a'). In C, this is equivalent to sizeof(int). In C++, it
    is equivalent to sizeof(char). If I'm writing "C-style code", which
    behaviour should I expect?

    The same holds for the enumerations; in C, they're type int. In C++
    they're distinct types, possibly with different sizes.

    The comma operator, in C++, can result in an lvalue; not so in C.

    C++ const globals are file scope by default; in C, they're extern by
    default.

    And the list goes ever on and on. Point is, these are not gross and
    obvious differences, such as using new[] instead of malloc, or cout
    inserters instead of puts and printf; these are the sorts of things which
    sneak up and bite you because they are subtle, easily overlooked and
    *especially* easily overlooked if you're not careful to figure out which
    language, exactly, you're dealing with and doing the job right, instead
    of some half-assed approach of writing something that looks like C but
    isn't quite, compiling it with a C++ compiler and hoping you get
    something sensible as a result.

    If you really need to mix and match, it's not all that hard. Write the C
    code properly, in C, with a C compiler, then link it, _as C_, to your C++
    project.


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

    On Sep 24, 8:37 pm, "Joe Potter" wrote:
    >
    > CR/LF was also used by OS2 and some DEC operating systems.


    It probably started with RT-11 and the first KSR-33 ASCII teletypes,
    which supported line-feed, reverse line-feed, and carriage return,
    which allowed applications to create simple "graphics" using asterisks
    and other core functions. To plot multiple lines, you could use the
    CR and use a for-loop to print spaces, then print some other character
    and repeat for each line.
    THEN you would send the carriage return.

    >You are correct - CR/LF was definitely used by CP/M.


    > Lotsa rant about nothing.


    The internet standard was to use line feeds between lines, and nothing
    else. This was based on the assumption made by UNIX, that if you knew
    what was "end of line" you could have a filter send whatever was
    needed by the printer to atvance to the line. Because UNIX was shared
    by multiple users, storage was at a premium, and every extra character
    and byte made a difference.

    My issue is that for almost 20 years now, Microsoft STILL hasn't come
    up with a basic text editor that can deal with line-feed terminated
    characters. About the best they can do is WordPad which wants to
    "help" you save in proprietary formats.




    > > Tom Shelton



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

    On Oct 8, 6:26 pm, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    > "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    >
    > news:m54tr5-6es.ln1@spanky.work.net...
    >
    > > [snips]

    >
    > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:54:05 -0500, Matt wrote:

    >
    > >> Visual C++ has become pretty much standards-compliant. Nowadays it is
    > >> easy to build a C++ program to run on Linux, Windows, and Mac with very
    > >> little need for conditional compilation. I believe that that came true
    > >> only about five years ago, about the time MS started giving away their
    > >> compiler.


    Actually, not quite. If you use visio UML to feed visual studio, or
    you use any of the other tools to accelerate development, you'll end
    up calling a bunch of classes and methods that simply don't exist on
    Linux or Unix C++ libraries. On the other hand, if you use gcc or g+
    +, with the BOOST library, you can run it on cygwin (Linux in
    Windows), or in native Windows mode.

    The compiler is "almost" compatible, but code generators generate
    things that break non-Visual C++ compilers.

    If you write your application for Linux using C, C++, Java, or C#, it
    will compile and run on Windows. If you develop for Windows, then all
    it will run on is Windows.


    > > Try it in C, though. Particularly C99 with MS's compilers.

    >
    > The MS compiler only supports a few of the C99 features. (long long variadic
    > macros, restrict, pragma's etc) but it's generally lacking most of the
    > features. MS isn't doing much work on the C-compiler and seems to believe
    > that it's the C++ compiler that matters. GCC has better support for C99 but
    > several of the C99 features aren't actually implemented in gcc (http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html ).
    >
    > Other than legacy C code (which is unlikely to use C99 constructs) why isn't
    > new code being written in C++? Most of our code is now written in C++ which
    > provides several benefits (strict type-checking, etc) than a C-compiler. Is
    > there a reason why you're not writing new code (even if it's C-style code)
    > and not compiling it with a C++ compiler?



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

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Rex Ballard belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > The compiler is "almost" compatible, but code generators generate
    > things that break non-Visual C++ compilers.
    >
    > If you write your application for Linux using C, C++, Java, or C#, it
    > will compile and run on Windows. If you develop for Windows, then all
    > it will run on is Windows.


    First thing -- strip out "#include "

    --
    #include

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

    On 2008-10-09, Rex Ballard wrote:
    > On Sep 24, 8:37 pm, "Joe Potter" wrote:
    >>
    >> CR/LF was also used by OS2 and some DEC operating systems.

    >
    > It probably started with RT-11 and the first KSR-33 ASCII teletypes,
    > which supported line-feed, reverse line-feed, and carriage return,
    > which allowed applications to create simple "graphics" using asterisks
    > and other core functions. To plot multiple lines, you could use the
    > CR and use a for-loop to print spaces, then print some other character
    > and repeat for each line.
    > THEN you would send the carriage return.
    >
    >>You are correct - CR/LF was definitely used by CP/M.

    >
    >> Lotsa rant about nothing.

    >
    > The internet standard was to use line feeds between lines, and nothing
    > else.


    1) The Internet was no where in the sight of average users at the time that
    DOS was created.

    2) Most text based protocols that I have dealt with use CR/LF as the
    terminator.

    > This was based on the assumption made by UNIX, that if you knew
    > what was "end of line" you could have a filter send whatever was
    > needed by the printer to atvance to the line. Because UNIX was shared
    > by multiple users, storage was at a premium, and every extra character
    > and byte made a difference.
    >


    Fine. Different system, different needs.

    > My issue is that for almost 20 years now, Microsoft STILL hasn't come
    > up with a basic text editor that can deal with line-feed terminated
    > characters. About the best they can do is WordPad which wants to
    > "help" you save in proprietary formats.


    The average windows user couldn't give a flying crap about LF terminated
    characters. Those of us who do, install something like vim, emacs, or some
    other more advanced text editor that does understand these types of files.

    --
    Tom Shelton

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

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On 2008-10-09, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>
    >> The internet standard was to use line feeds between lines, and nothing
    >> else.

    >
    > 1) The Internet was no where in the sight of average users at the time that
    > DOS was created.


    Depends what you mean by average, Tom. Well before I used DOS, I used
    UNIX (for a semester) and we got regular feeds from the ARPANET, at the
    University. Circa 1982 for me.

    Not sure how that is relevant to linefeeds, though.

    Cue Hadron to come in and make a big deal about how arrogant I sound .

    --
    In 1880 the French captured Detroit but gave it back ... they couldn't
    get parts.

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

    On 2008-10-09, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-09, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The internet standard was to use line feeds between lines, and nothing
    >>> else.

    >>
    >> 1) The Internet was no where in the sight of average users at the time that
    >> DOS was created.

    >
    > Depends what you mean by average, Tom.


    I think it's pretty obvious - I mean your average user. You know, joe public.
    Most of the consumer market....

    > Well before I used DOS, I used
    > UNIX (for a semester) and we got regular feeds from the ARPANET, at the
    > University. Circa 1982 for me.
    >


    Yep. So? The average user going out and buying a pc in the DOS days wan't
    worried about the internet.

    > Not sure how that is relevant to linefeeds, though.
    >


    It's not. It's just Rex flaling around trying to salvage a point - that some
    how the use of CR/LF as a line terminator was a part of a grand Microsoft
    conspiracy. I was simply pointing out the problems with is logic. For all
    practicle purposes, the Internet did not exist to anyone outside of the
    military or acedamia.

    > Cue Hadron to come in and make a big deal about how arrogant I sound .
    >


    LOL.

    --
    Tom Shelton

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


    "Tom Shelton" wrote in message
    news:MPKdnW0sRMMOrHPVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    > On 2008-10-09, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-09, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The internet standard was to use line feeds between lines, and nothing
    >>>> else.
    >>>
    >>> 1) The Internet was no where in the sight of average users at the time
    >>> that
    >>> DOS was created.

    >>
    >> Depends what you mean by average, Tom.

    >
    > I think it's pretty obvious - I mean your average user. You know, joe
    > public.
    > Most of the consumer market....
    >
    >> Well before I used DOS, I used
    >> UNIX (for a semester) and we got regular feeds from the ARPANET, at the
    >> University. Circa 1982 for me.
    >>

    >
    > Yep. So? The average user going out and buying a pc in the DOS days
    > wan't
    > worried about the internet.


    Back when DOS was released with CR+LF (1981) the internet was basically
    nothing compared to what it is today. Most consumers/companies didn't even
    realize this "internet" thing existed.


    >> Not sure how that is relevant to linefeeds, though.
    >>

    >
    > It's not. It's just Rex flaling around trying to salvage a point - that
    > some
    > how the use of CR/LF as a line terminator was a part of a grand Microsoft
    > conspiracy. I was simply pointing out the problems with is logic. For
    > all
    > practicle purposes, the Internet did not exist to anyone outside of the
    > military or acedamia.


    The entire claim that CR+LF is some conspiracy to subvert the internet is
    laughable. For starters MS-DOS with its CR+LF was released in 1981. History
    shows that Microsoft ignored the internet far too long and let Netscape and
    others take the lead. So according to this crazy "conspiracy theory" MS
    completely ignored the internet until the mid 1990's but back in 1981 they
    were able to perfectly foresee the future and see what the internet would
    become sometime in the next decade and attempted to sabotage it with CR+LF
    eol terminators.

    Also... as you (or someone else) mentioned earlier, many (most?) internet
    protocols use CR+LF as end of line terminators so it's actually Unix/Linux
    files that do not conform with internet standards. SMTP uses CR+LF for end
    of line. POP3 usues CR+LF for end of line. HTTP uses CR+LF for end of line.

    As usual, Rex is simply spewing nonsense.


    >> Cue Hadron to come in and make a big deal about how arrogant I sound
    >> .
    >>

    >
    > LOL.
    >
    > --
    > Tom Shelton




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

    Tom Shelton writes:

    > On 2008-10-09, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-09, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The internet standard was to use line feeds between lines, and nothing
    >>>> else.
    >>>
    >>> 1) The Internet was no where in the sight of average users at the time that
    >>> DOS was created.

    >>
    >> Depends what you mean by average, Tom.

    >
    > I think it's pretty obvious - I mean your average user. You know, joe public.
    > Most of the consumer market....


    You would think it would be obvious. Its even WHY you use
    "average". Liarmutt is clearly in evasion mode.

    >
    >> Well before I used DOS, I used
    >> UNIX (for a semester) and we got regular feeds from the ARPANET, at the
    >> University. Circa 1982 for me.
    >>

    >
    > Yep. So? The average user going out and buying a pc in the DOS days wan't
    > worried about the internet.


    Exactly. Chris does this. Throws in some big words and hopes to deflect
    from the point in hand.
    >
    >> Not sure how that is relevant to linefeeds, though.
    >>

    >
    > It's not. It's just Rex flaling around trying to salvage a point - that some
    > how the use of CR/LF as a line terminator was a part of a grand Microsoft
    > conspiracy. I was simply pointing out the problems with is logic. For all
    > practicle purposes, the Internet did not exist to anyone outside of the
    > military or acedamia.
    >
    >> Cue Hadron to come in and make a big deal about how arrogant I sound .
    >>

    >
    > LOL.


    LOL Indeed. But arrogant is not the word. Clueless and hopeless
    possibly.

    The MS adoption was from CP/M and was a legacy of serial lines and dumb
    terminals.

    --
    BOY is Microsoft doomed! LOL!
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

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

    On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:30:11 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > It's not. It's just Rex flaling around trying to salvage a point - that some
    > how the use of CR/LF as a line terminator was a part of a grand Microsoft
    > conspiracy. I was simply pointing out the problems with is logic. For all
    > practicle purposes, the Internet did not exist to anyone outside of the
    > military or acedamia.


    One must imagine how he must feel about the Mac, which in the old days used
    only a single CR (no LF) for end of line. I guess that must have been a
    conspiracy too.

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

    On 2008-10-09, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:30:11 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >> It's not. It's just Rex flaling around trying to salvage a point - that some
    >> how the use of CR/LF as a line terminator was a part of a grand Microsoft
    >> conspiracy. I was simply pointing out the problems with is logic. For all
    >> practicle purposes, the Internet did not exist to anyone outside of the
    >> military or acedamia.

    >
    > One must imagine how he must feel about the Mac, which in the old days used
    > only a single CR (no LF) for end of line. I guess that must have been a
    > conspiracy too.


    Yeah, I already mentioned that

    --
    Tom Shelton

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5