GUI

[James Knott]

Taavi Burns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:31:59PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
> 
>>"fun" thing I came across in that C homework, was the different variable 
>>sizes in the Borland C++ (OS/2) I had at home and Turbo C++ (DOS), which 
>>we used in class.  I'd write my program and it would run fine at home, 
>>but then in class next day, I'd over run some variable.  However, the 
>>same problem would have occured if I'd used Borland C++ for Windows.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure.  Windows 3.1 was still very 16-bit, and would
> probably have had a lot of 16-bit bias in it.  OS/2 Warp 3, however,
> was a fully 32-bit OS, just like Linux, and so would have a 32-bit
> bias.

There were two packages for Windows.  You could get either the Turbo or 
Borland versions.  The Borland version used the same size variables as 
the OS/2 Borland C++.  Don't forget, back in those days, both Windows 95 
and NT were available.  We used Windows 3.1 in that class.


> 
> There's currently a similar problem with Windows on 64-bit hardware,
> where 'int' is still a 32-bit number; it's the only 64-bit platform
> I know of where this is the case.  I suspect this was done because
> setting it to a 64-bit type caused breakage due to shoddy, old,
> crufty code that nobody understood anyway.  But that's purely
> supposition.  It's not like I've ever peeked at the Windows
> source code to find out.
> 


--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml