3 ms·

> All non-ms programming languages are UNIX-first. They feel bolted-on when ported. This is not an argument against Windows, but against these programming lang

by wolfgke 11y ago

> All non-ms programming languages are UNIX-first. They feel bolted-on when ported. This is not an argument against Windows, but against these programming languages and their maintainers. > And let us also not forget the complete freedom you have on UNIX systems. There are lots of commercial UNIX systems that have much more restrictive licensing terms than Windows. > Another benefit is, the lower level APIs are the same they were two decades ago, some are even older. And that API surface is much smaller. You basically learn them once, and they're good for life. The same holds for WinAPI etc.

melted 11y ago
1. Be that as it may, no one is idiot enough to create their life's work on a proprietary platform. 2. Which is why commercial unixes are being supplanted by FOSS. And it far easier to do than, eg porting anything from Windows to anything else. 3. WinAPI is a verbose, poorly designed turd, so that doesn't really help your argument any.
- catnaroek 11y ago
  I'm primarily a Linux user, and only use Windows at work, and don't consider POSIX precisely the pinnacle of tasteful API design.
  - melted 11y ago
    It doesn't have to run faster than the bear. It only has to run faster than the other guy.
    - catnaroek 11y ago
      It isn't clear to me that POSIX is strictly better than the Windows API in all respects. For instance, synchronizing processes manipulating a common file is very awkward in POSIX.
catnaroek 11y ago
> This is not an argument against Windows, but against those programming languages and their maintainers. Disagree. It's the operating system's job to make it easy for programmers to write the programs they want. If language implementors consistently don't want to support a certain operating system, it's a sign that something might be wrong with that operating system. Not necessarily from a technical point of view - it could be, say, a marketing issue.

by wolfgke 11y ago

melted 11y ago

1. Be that as it may, no one is idiot enough to create their life's work on a proprietary platform. 2. Which is why commercial unixes are being supplanted by FOSS. And it far easier to do than, eg porting anything from Windows to anything else. 3. WinAPI is a verbose, poorly designed turd, so that doesn't really help your argument any.

catnaroek 11y ago
I'm primarily a Linux user, and only use Windows at work, and don't consider POSIX precisely the pinnacle of tasteful API design.
- melted 11y ago
  It doesn't have to run faster than the bear. It only has to run faster than the other guy.
  - catnaroek 11y ago
    It isn't clear to me that POSIX is strictly better than the Windows API in all respects. For instance, synchronizing processes manipulating a common file is very awkward in POSIX.

catnaroek 11y ago

> This is not an argument against Windows, but against those programming languages and their maintainers. Disagree. It's the operating system's job to make it easy for programmers to write the programs they want. If language implementors consistently don't want to support a certain operating system, it's a sign that something might be wrong with that operating system. Not necessarily from a technical point of view - it could be, say, a marketing issue.