Subject: Re: pathname conversion
From: [email-masked] (John R. Dennis)

23 Sep 1997 14:05:08 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

>>>>> "Mikey" == Mikey  <[email-masked]> writes:

    Mikey> Because Microsoft's programmers are IDIOTS, and have been
    Mikey> ever since 1982 when dos 1 came out...

You listed a number of reason why DOS/Win32 is brain dead (no argument
here) and why the UNIX solution is superior (once again no
argument). But what you didn't do is answer my question, which was why
are tools targeted for one environment not compatible with that environment?

I also detest many of the Microsoft OS features. But what is
inescapable is the fact the tools are running in a Win32 environment
with specfic rules for pathnames. I believe that porting includes
making the tool compatible with the native environment. Whether the
native environment is brain dead is irrelevant, it is the environment
you are working in for better or worse, suggesting you use a "real
operating system" is pointless.

Am I in the minority when I suggest porting includes making the port
compatible with the target environment?

Please note I am not suggesting removing support for better solutions
nor am I unappreciative of the fine work Cygnus has done on my
behalf. I'm just frustrated with using some of the tools because of
what seems to be a needless incompatibility. I suspect others are in
the same boat. Anybody else run into this problem?

-- 
John Dennis (Sharp Eye, Inc.)
Contract programming services specializing in 3D graphics
http://www.sharpeye.com
[email-masked]

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".