3 ms·
I don't know the exact year that file format was made, but you had to think about performance more than wasting so much memory and cpu cycles to have a fancy fi
by jve 4y ago
I don't know the exact year that file format was made, but you had to think about performance more than wasting so much memory and cpu cycles to have a fancy file format, no?
Ofcourse that era Microsoft tools didn't think much about interoperability outside of Microsoft ecosystem. But to me it seems that them having some XML based file format at that time would be silly and have disadvantages. XML actually was started on '96 and published on '98 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML
.doc seems to be used starting from '89
> The format used in earlier, pre-97 ("1.0" 1989 through "7.0" 1995) versions of Word are less known https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_(computing)
- Someone 4y agoAgree. I think most software of the era did that kind of thing. Most of it wasn’t popular enough and/or got abandoned soon enough for ‘the internet’ to notice, though. If your software runs in 256kB, writing to a floppy disk, you pack your data structures, use bit fields where possible, and you’re not going to waste CPU time, RAM and disk space to write a format that’s easy to understand and extend. (Of course, they extended it, anyways, as everybody would)