Note from a donor

[Kagamin]

On Monday, 30 October 2017 at 14:46:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 30 October 2017 at 10:53:33 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> Because native.
>
> The processor natively supports all 32 bit code when running in 
> 64 bit more. It just works as far as native hardware goes.

For processor it's a whole compatibility mode of operation. It's 
fairly deeply integrated, but still...

> You also need your library dependencies installed too, and 
> indeed on Linux that might be an extra install (just like any 
> other dependencies...), but on Windows, the 32 bit core libs 
> are always installed and with D, you don't really use other 
> stuff anyway.

For OS it's a whole emulated subsystem with separate collection 
of compiled code installed and loaded into RAM. On my system it's 
1.36gb, 7000 files. On Windows it depends on installation too 
whether 32 bit subsystem is installed. Also if the code can work 
on linux 64 bit, there's little reason to stretch it to 32 bit.

> If you're playing around... really no reason not to just use 
> the 32 bit one.

64 bit system is free from some legacy stuff too, it's just 
better. So it's better to play with 64 bit than with 32 bit. For 
example remember the whole OMF deal.