Posix vs. Windows
H. S. Teoh
hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Fri May 18 12:41:34 PDT 2012
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:11:33PM -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On May 18, 2012, at 9:42 AM, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:37:23AM -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > [...]
> >> If you're targeting Windows then use Windows APIs, if Posix then
> >> Posix. Windows does claim Posix support, but it's really pretty
> >> terrible and Druntime doesn't have declarations for the Posix Windows
> >> interface anyway.
> >
> > Does Windows conform to the Posix spec at all? I highly doubt it, esp.
> > some parts that just goes against how Windows works.
>
> It's called SUA these days and I believe is Posix compliant. The
> problem is more that the Posix spec is so loose that Posix compliance
> alone doesn't mean very much. Tons of stuff is isn't implemented or is
> implemented badly, and the command shell is just a train wreck.
Command shells have always been a train wreck on Windows, as far as I
can remember. I haven't used Windows in any serious way for more than a
decade now, so I can't speak for later versions of Windows, but I
suspect things haven't changed much.
This is one of those things that makes Windows (l)users wonder how we
Unix people can stand using the shell all day -- their idea of shell is
the DOS prompt (a veritable train wreck of train wrecks). If only they
knew what a *real* shell can do. ;-)
T
--
All problems are easy in retrospect.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list