3 ms·

Well, I think it is quite possible that the devs on the first-party team are not the same devs on the platform team. First-party or not, if the platform provide

by talmand 10y ago

Well, I think it is quite possible that the devs on the first-party team are not the same devs on the platform team. First-party or not, if the platform provides the tools and the devs refuse to use them, it is on the devs. Not the platform, the devs. Unless you can show me where the company demands its devs do so for no good reason. >> I bet somewhere in there there's still UI that dates back to Win3.1. I'm sure there is, that's a mix of backwards compatibility and don't mess with stuff that works. Some people want it, some people don't; can't make everybody happy. Can I complain that OS X provides a terminal that looks like it dates back to the 70's?

tptacek 10y ago
No? Because that complaint doesn't make any sense? Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE?
- talmand 10y ago
  It does makes sense if I insist we only consider my own personal subjective opinion on the matter, which most complaints along these lines tend to be.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  > Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE? To be fair, a lot of Terminal.app dates back to ancient Mac OS too. The menu bars, for example, are all still Carbon. There is still a full classic Mac OS main loop running alongside the Cocoa main loop in every macOS application. Apple's done a good job hiding it, but it's still there. Anyway, cmd.exe is a bit of a special case. What you're really seeing is conhost.exe, which is kept the way it is because it's part of CSRSS, which occupies a similar place as PID 1 does, and Microsoft doesn't want to bring new UI into it for fear of increasing its dependencies [1]. [1]: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=23983 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=...
tedunangst 10y ago
The 3.1 UI that still exists is silly stuff like file open dialogs that aren't "desktop aware" or whatever. There's no reason at all to retain such "compat" because it instead requires users to learn where all such magic folders live in the filesystem.

by talmand 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

No? Because that complaint doesn't make any sense? Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE?

talmand 10y ago
It does makes sense if I insist we only consider my own personal subjective opinion on the matter, which most complaints along these lines tend to be.
pcwalton 10y ago
> Especially since Terminal.app is far more modern than CMD.EXE? To be fair, a lot of Terminal.app dates back to ancient Mac OS too. The menu bars, for example, are all still Carbon. There is still a full classic Mac OS main loop running alongside the Cocoa main loop in every macOS application. Apple's done a good job hiding it, but it's still there. Anyway, cmd.exe is a bit of a special case. What you're really seeing is conhost.exe, which is kept the way it is because it's part of CSRSS, which occupies a similar place as PID 1 does, and Microsoft doesn't want to bring new UI into it for fear of increasing its dependencies [1]. [1]: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=23983 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071231-00/?p=...

tedunangst 10y ago

The 3.1 UI that still exists is silly stuff like file open dialogs that aren't "desktop aware" or whatever. There's no reason at all to retain such "compat" because it instead requires users to learn where all such magic folders live in the filesystem.