Do we need Win95/98/Me support?

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Sun Jan 22 21:48:18 PST 2012


"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:jfis68$2uv7$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.722.1327291162.16222.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>I find it kind of funny that someone would use a *new* language to
>> support an *ancient* platform. If someone is still hacking with win9x
>> support I bet their dev environment is -- VC6.
>
> While I agree 9x isn't worth supporting, calling it "ancient" is pure 
> hyperbole. CP/M is ancient. ProDOS is arguably ancient. Hell, Win2 could 
> even be called ancient. Win9x is just simply old/outdated. Christ, it 
> includes an OS (WinMe) that's arguably *ONE* version prior to a version 
> that's still heavily used - XP. (Hell, even Win98 was the version that 
> *most* people used immediately prior to the still-heavily-used XP).
>
> I know I'm going all off on something that really is nitpicky, but misuse 
> of grandiose words like "ancient", "epic", etc., to refer to fairly 
> trivial matters is a bit of a pet peeve...
>
> (Hell, using "ancient" to refer to "computers more than 5-10 years old" is 
> itself rather..."ancient".)
>

FWIW, I do agree that "new language on an...outdated...platform" does have 
an air of anachronism.




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list