The Design of Software (CLOSED)

A public forum for discussing the design of software, from the user interface to the code architecture. Now closed.

The "Design of Software" discussion group has been merged with the main Joel on Software discussion group.

The archives will remain online indefinitely.

Multi-platform

Vista has features not found in XP. If I am developing an application to target both and want to take advantage of the new features in Vista, what can I do other than having to release separate EXEs?
coder
Friday, August 08, 2008
 
 
Check the windows version at runtime and handle appropriately.

Friday, August 08, 2008
 
 
You'll need to me more specific however one method may be to link to api functions dynamically at run time using GetprocAddress(). There is nothing new about this.
Neville Franks Send private email
Sunday, August 10, 2008
 
 
People describing Vista and XP as "multi-platform" always reminds me of the Blues Brothers...
Iago
Sunday, August 10, 2008
 
 
Country and Western!
anon for this
Sunday, August 10, 2008
 
 
Isn't XP and Vista just different versions of the SAME platform (Written by the same company, none-the-less!)?

What about Linux, Solaris, or Mac OS X? (Which actually /are/ different platforms)
Arafangion Send private email
Sunday, August 10, 2008
 
 
> What about Linux, Solaris, or Mac OS X?

they're different versions of nix
anon
Monday, August 11, 2008
 
 
>> What about Linux, Solaris, or Mac OS X?
>they're different versions of nix

I'm not going to even respond to that...
Arafangion Send private email
Monday, August 11, 2008
 
 
*blink*

but...you just did respond to that.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008
 
 
> but...you just did respond to that.

Go and re-sit your English classes.  Whenever the teacher mentions "implication" - or any of the related terms, pay attention.

For good measure, also read up on sarcasm.

:)  <-- Obligatory smiley for sarcastic responses on the internet, which should show that this is not a personal attack.
Arafangion Send private email
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
 
 
Oh I get it. You're sarcastically implying that you're not going to respond, which is not a response at all, even though you clicked a button that said "Reply" which is also a synonym for the word Response.

Then you responded to my sarcastic remark by telling me to read up on sarcasm.

Perhaps you're the one who needs an English class, as well as a Philosophy class with an emphasis on Absurdism or maybe Logic.

P.S.

:) <-- Obligatory smiley which allows me be use witty language to convey insults or scorn and basically mock you (aka "using sarcasm") without feeling guilty.

Later!

Tuesday, August 12, 2008
 
 
I was implying that there are a number of "holy wars" that I didn't want to get into when I made that comment.

For example, consider that Mac OS X, OpenBSD, Linux, and Windows are maintained by completely different people, and that Windows is Posix compliant, (1.0 I think), while Linux is not, and is definetly not a version of Unix, *nix, even though it is often used as a clone of Unix.

In other words, the real story is not simple.
Arafangion Send private email
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
 
 
There is a "real story"?  I doubt it.  The "story" is mostly a fantasy made to look like whatever the poster wants it to be. He fails to communicate clearly by using undefined and inadequately qualified terms. That way no one can be wrong.  Also, no one can be right.  More importantly, it creates a good excuse for an endless and totally pointless exchange of "it is!" and "no, it isn't!" on a meandering of topics. 

Isn't it about time for some one to exclaim:  "Nazi"?  That would make it quite clear that this thread has no content and was never intended to have any.
Lionell K. Griffith Send private email
Monday, August 25, 2008
 
 

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
 
Powered by FogBugz