4 ms·
Full assembly. Was this the case all the way up to 6.22 ?
by utopcell 8y ago
Full assembly. Was this the case all the way up to 6.22 ?
- simcop2387 8y agoI bet at least until the whole .com .exe stuff was sorted out. After .exe was created they finally got more than a single segment in a binary, so they probably we're using C by then for some things at least. I imagine all the .com files were ask even at 6.22 though, because of the 64kb limit of them
- Narishma 8y agoI'm pretty sure .EXE was supported from the first release.
- simcop2387 8y agoLooks like you're probably right, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_MZ_executable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_MZ_executable There's at least support in 1.0, but the api changed in 2.0. Though I believe the few bits of software I've seen from that era, there were fewer .exes (I suspect for the same language distinction I postulated earlier).
- aries1980 8y agoAlso, .exe had a larger header, afaik 512 bytes, that was luxurious for some use cases.
- qwerty456127 8y agoI believe I've once seen parts of some leaked DOS (6.0 5.0 or 3.0, I can't remember for sure) source code that was at least partially in C.
- sebazzz 8y agoProbably everything that is 16-bit.