Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

FPC 16-bit (Announce)

posted by marcov, 01.07.2013, 22:29

> My point is that every blowhard tries to declare certain tech as obsolete.
Yes. But that is more context of declaring Windows XP dead. Or Vista. Or pre 3.x Linux kernels. Not natively hosted 8086 compilers anno 2013:-)

> > Yes. But you didn't post a msdos specific statement, you posted about
> > nothing worth doing requires more than 500k. That is a general
> statement.
>
> No. I actually said that you should be able to write something quite
> reasonably useful, even a full-blown compiler, in 500 kb.

Maybe. Maybe if I dedicate my life I can also do it in 250kb. Or 128kb. Or whatever.

> (And yes, I was implying this for the IBM PC architecture and real mode
> DOS. This is a DOS forum and thread talking about 16-bit support from
> compilers!)
TARGET support. You tried to change it to HOST support.

> Totally arbitrary, but it shouldn't be that big of a stretch! (Even FASMW,
> which is far from being only a minimalistic assembler + IDE for Win32, is
> only 142 kb.)
Yes, even FASM. ROTFL :-D

You know the end of a software tools discussion approaches if fasm is declared the pinnacle of development tools :)

> > That's exactly what I mean. That is an end-user (desktop) centric way of
> > measuring a server OS.
>
> You know full well that FreeBSD isn't limited to servers, not even by
> design.

I never said that. But that is its main use, and thus anything used to gauge its usage should account for that.

It is like gauging FreeBSD as a 8086 host based on the fact that it can run QEMU.

> (Though why MS doesn't mimic Apple and port over some FreeBSD tools or even
> their Linux emulation is beyond me. Oh wait, I forgot, compatibility is bad
> for marketing when you want everyone to only follow you instead.)
Because they are Unix licensee and have had their own *nix since years of yonder?

> > A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. You are either compatible
> or not. A few rest bits of posix compatibility are useless.
>
> People cannot restrain themselves from using some non-portable features,
True.

> While you may applaud them, I can't
> understand it.

I can be short about that, never considered POSIX as a dividing line of portable and non-portable. Only as a dividing line of Unix-like and not Unix like.

I'm sure as a dos user you can sympathize.

> They did, but ... old code was removed, patches were rejected, etc. These
> are not technical limitations but human ones. They only want to promote
> themselves and their ideals, not help others port the actual technical
> code. (Yes, I'm mostly thinking GNU snobs here, but there are others too,
> see below.)
So the noble forces of the old and useless gathered and forked in response? Maybe I missed it, WHERE did they go too ? :-)

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 372 users online (0 registered, 372 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum