4 ms·

That is not the widely-used terminology of Microsoft Windows where a console is a specific I/O mechanism, different from a terminal. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/tui

by JdeBP 7y ago

That is not the widely-used terminology of Microsoft Windows where a console is a specific I/O mechanism, different from a terminal. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/tui-console-and-terminal-paradigms.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/tui-console-and-terminal-paradigms.html That the word "console" may denote other things, including a part of a pipe organ, is irrelevant. When discussing Windows Terminal one is almost always talking about the Microsoft Windows I/O mechanism, that's been around since Windows NT 3. * https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/console/consoles https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/console/consoles (The parenthetical "terminal" is a relatively recent addition to the doco. Not a wise one in my view, because it confuses more than it clarifies.)

mehrdadn 7y ago
That definition isn't really used consistently by Microsoft as far as I've been able to tell (though I think it was in the past). If you go by that traditional Win32 definition then "CreatePseudoConsole" should've been called CreatePseudoTerminal or CreatePTY... after all, Windows already has real console functionality; it doesn't need a pseudo-console. It needs a pseudo-TTY. And if you go by that definition then IMHO the "Windows Terminal" would need to be called the "Windows Console"... But honestly usage of the word "console" was clearly not what the parent's argument was about, which makes it kind of irrelevant to the whole discussion... Edit: Regarding your edit linking to where even Microsoft says "A console (or terminal) ...": you can dismiss it all you want, but I rest my case.
- JdeBP 7y ago
  It's only irrelevant if your immediately equating console and terminal in response, and then asking for a definition, was irrelevant. Were you irrelevant? (-: I dismiss it because there's a mountain of usage contradicting that johnny-come-lately parenthetical. It's a well-known distinction; documented by lots of people, including me for about two decades now (actually longer, 2000 is simply when I wrote the FGA). And if your case is based upon the Win32 API function naming scheme, your case is founded on sand. I should not need to explain why to any Win32 developer. (-: In reality, the thing that ConPTY gives one is not a pseudo-terminal, because the wrapped applications are talking to consoles as far as they are concerned. It's not the simple implementation that I would have chosen (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818942). It's a much more ambitious architecture, that aims to let terminal I/O applications talk to Win32 consoles as if they were old 1980s terminals, to let 1990s and later Win32 console applications have their I/O driven via systems that ship terminal I/O, and to let both the old 1980s terminal I/O applications and the 1990s and later console I/O applications almost seamlessly share a common screen and input buffer.

by JdeBP 7y ago

mehrdadn 7y ago

That definition isn't really used consistently by Microsoft as far as I've been able to tell (though I think it was in the past). If you go by that traditional Win32 definition then "CreatePseudoConsole" should've been called CreatePseudoTerminal or CreatePTY... after all, Windows already has real console functionality; it doesn't need a pseudo-console. It needs a pseudo-TTY. And if you go by that definition then IMHO the "Windows Terminal" would need to be called the "Windows Console"... But honestly usage of the word "console" was clearly not what the parent's argument was about, which makes it kind of irrelevant to the whole discussion... Edit: Regarding your edit linking to where even Microsoft says "A console (or terminal) ...": you can dismiss it all you want, but I rest my case.

JdeBP 7y ago
It's only irrelevant if your immediately equating console and terminal in response, and then asking for a definition, was irrelevant. Were you irrelevant? (-: I dismiss it because there's a mountain of usage contradicting that johnny-come-lately parenthetical. It's a well-known distinction; documented by lots of people, including me for about two decades now (actually longer, 2000 is simply when I wrote the FGA). And if your case is based upon the Win32 API function naming scheme, your case is founded on sand. I should not need to explain why to any Win32 developer. (-: In reality, the thing that ConPTY gives one is not a pseudo-terminal, because the wrapped applications are talking to consoles as far as they are concerned. It's not the simple implementation that I would have chosen (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818942). It's a much more ambitious architecture, that aims to let terminal I/O applications talk to Win32 consoles as if they were old 1980s terminals, to let 1990s and later Win32 console applications have their I/O driven via systems that ship terminal I/O, and to let both the old 1980s terminal I/O applications and the 1990s and later console I/O applications almost seamlessly share a common screen and input buffer.