www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - versioning other OS

reply Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:
I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There 
is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or 
will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS?
Jun 22 2004
parent reply Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says...
I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There 
is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or 
will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS?

Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? Not bothered by the answer, just wondering. Arcane Jill
Jun 22 2004
next sibling parent reply Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:
Arcane Jill wrote:

 In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says...
 
I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There 
is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or 
will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS?

Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? Not bothered by the answer, just wondering. Arcane Jill

I don't know nor will I answer your question as the first half will explain why. I could only guess that maybe they were smoking a bong or forgot to caps the first letter. I would like to have 'Linux' but what can I do? Change the source code, *laughs*?
Jun 22 2004
parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
It should be changed to Linux. We are pre-1.0.

"Gold Dragon" <dragonwing dragonu.net> wrote in message
news:cb9681$1p4l$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Arcane Jill wrote:

 In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says...

I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There
is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or
will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS?

Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? Not bothered by the answer, just wondering. Arcane Jill

I don't know nor will I answer your question as the first half will explain why. I could only guess that maybe they were smoking a bong or forgot to caps the first letter. I would like to have 'Linux' but what can I do? Change the source code, *laughs*?

Jun 22 2004
parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
 It should be changed to Linux. We are pre-1.0.

If "Linux" is indeed what it would sensibly be defined as, that is. If there's a good reason why "linux" and "Windows", then so be it.
 "Gold Dragon" <dragonwing dragonu.net> wrote in message
 news:cb9681$1p4l$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Arcane Jill wrote:

 In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says...

I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There
is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or
will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS?

Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? Not bothered by the answer, just wondering. Arcane Jill

I don't know nor will I answer your question as the first half will explain why. I could only guess that maybe they were smoking a bong or forgot to caps the first letter. I would like to have 'Linux' but what can I do? Change the source code, *laughs*?


Jun 22 2004
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
Matthew wrote:

It should be changed to Linux. We are pre-1.0.

If "Linux" is indeed what it would sensibly be defined as, that is. If there's a good reason why "linux" and "Windows", then so be it.

Names (e.g. "Linux") have capital letters in all languages I know. Granted, I know only latin-based ones, but there you go. It's "Linux". 100% sure of it.
Jun 22 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cb95v4$1oqu$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says...
I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There
is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or
will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS?

Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"?

Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code.
Jun 22 2004
next sibling parent Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:
 
 Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code.

Well what is the versioning for Mac below X? Or should I take a peek at gcc?
Jun 22 2004
prev sibling parent reply Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cb9see$2u9r$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"?

Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code.

So what? Is there supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between D version(...) tags and gcc preprocessor defines then? Because, if there is, (a) it's not mentioned anywhere, and (b) I don't think there should be. D is more than just an evolving compiler - it is a *LANGUAGE*. gcc is just a program - albeit a compiler, and a damn good one, it is, nonetheless, merely one single implementation among many of the C++ (not D) standard. I see no reason why this historical accident should force either bad grammar or inconsistent style on D. Well - I'm not particularly bothered about this, so I'm not going to argue about it beyond this post, but ... why not just be consistent with all the other D version names? (And presumably the version name for MacOS should be MacOS ... unless gcc gets to define that too). Arcane Jill
Jun 22 2004
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cba8os$h17$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <cb9see$2u9r$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"?

Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code.

So what? Is there supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between D version(...) tags and gcc preprocessor defines then? Because, if there is,

 it's not mentioned anywhere, and (b) I don't think there should be.

 D is more than just an evolving compiler - it is a *LANGUAGE*. gcc is just

 program - albeit a compiler, and a damn good one, it is, nonetheless,

 single implementation among many of the C++ (not D) standard. I see no

 why this historical accident should force either bad grammar or

 style on D.

 Well - I'm not particularly bothered about this, so I'm not going to argue

 it beyond this post, but ... why not just be consistent with all the other

 version names?

 (And presumably the version name for MacOS should be MacOS ... unless gcc

 to define that too).

I see your point, but there's also a point to abiding by common conventions absent a compelling reason for something different. If you've written a lot of portable code, you're probably used to using 'linux' rather than 'Linux' or 'LINUX' or "__linux__".
Jun 22 2004
parent reply Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> writes:
Walter wrote:
 "Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:cba8os$h17$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
In article <cb9see$2u9r$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"?

Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code.

So what? Is there supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between D version(...) tags and gcc preprocessor defines then? Because, if there is,

(a)
it's not mentioned anywhere, and (b) I don't think there should be.

D is more than just an evolving compiler - it is a *LANGUAGE*. gcc is just

a
program - albeit a compiler, and a damn good one, it is, nonetheless,

merely one
single implementation among many of the C++ (not D) standard. I see no

reason
why this historical accident should force either bad grammar or

inconsistent
style on D.

Well - I'm not particularly bothered about this, so I'm not going to argue

about
it beyond this post, but ... why not just be consistent with all the other

D
version names?

(And presumably the version name for MacOS should be MacOS ... unless gcc

gets
to define that too).

I see your point, but there's also a point to abiding by common conventions absent a compelling reason for something different. If you've written a lot of portable code, you're probably used to using 'linux' rather than 'Linux' or 'LINUX' or "__linux__".

I understand your reasoning, but, respectfully, I think you have it backwards. You argue that it is easier to remember the way to spell something by citing a convention from another compiler and language and regarding a specific OS. This convention is different for other compilers and other OSs (for example, it would be WIN32 or _WIN32 for VC/Windows). So by following these "external" conventions you work against your own goal - it will be impossible to remember the way something is spelt unless you know the external influences. Just establish a single convention for D and stick with it. That way you only have to remember one thing and it will reliably work for everything you do. Everyone can do that, whether he/she is new to writing portable code or not. The alternative - having to remember a different spelling for every version statement - is much worse and error-prone. Hauke
Jun 22 2004
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Hauke Duden" <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> wrote in message
news:cbafsu$s5c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 You argue that it is easier to remember the way to spell something by
 citing a convention from another compiler and language and regarding a
 specific OS. This convention is different for other compilers and other
 OSs (for example, it would be WIN32 or _WIN32 for VC/Windows). So by
 following these "external" conventions you work against your own goal -
 it will be impossible to remember the way something is spelt unless you
 know the external influences.

There's really only one C++ compiler on linux, and that's gcc. Other C++ compilers on linux strive to be bug compatible with it, so they'll be using 'linux' too. Other language compilers are not relevant because D looks to C/C++ for conventions. There is a compelling reason to not use _WIN32 - Microsoft is coming out with a 64 bit version of Windows, yet they'll still be leaving _WIN32 defined, but optionally define _WIN64. No thanks.
 Just establish a single convention for D and stick with it. That way you
 only have to remember one thing and it will reliably work for everything
 you do. Everyone can do that, whether he/she is new to writing portable
 code or not.

 The alternative - having to remember a different spelling for every
 version statement - is much worse and error-prone.

It would be fine if there were such a thing as a standard spelling and caps convention for an operating system. But there isn't. Especially when OS vendors follow the wretched practice of putting punctuation marks in the names of their products, like MS-DOS and OS/2. I see Mac OS X with several different spellings - this is from apple's own web site: Mac OS X macosx X Mac OS X Panther Panther Mac OS However, OS vendors tend to endorse a specific C/C++ compiler, and that compiler in it will have a specific #define for the OS. So following that convention makes sense. If the Linux people didn't like 'linux', why did they put it in GCC?
Jun 22 2004
parent Oskar Linde <d98-oliRE.MO.VE nada.kth.se> writes:
Walter wrote:
 However, OS vendors tend to endorse a specific C/C++ compiler, and that
 compiler in it will have a specific #define for the OS. So following that
 convention makes sense. If the Linux people didn't like 'linux', why did
 they put it in GCC?

It's more a question of consistency. linux __FreeBSD__ SOLARIS __hpux MACOSX /Oskar
Jun 23 2004