Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale)

On 23/08/2024 02:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:30:19 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
 

On 2024-08-22 13:00, David Brown wrote:
>

Then there are those that - wisely or unwisely - program in C for
Windows, without POSIX.

>
Yes, that is true. There is no reason to use POSIX under Windows,
whatsoever.

 That’s strange. Didn’t Microsoft tout the POSIX compatibility of Windows
to its US Government customers?

Yes - that's /exactly/ why Windows NT was designed with a POSIX subsystem.
The original plan (I remember a fine magazine article about it in the mid nineties) was that you'd have the NT kernel and GUI (copied from Windows 3 at the time) and multiple "personalities" or interfaces, including POSIX, Win32, Win32s, Win16, and OS/2.  Other operating systems would have similar possibilities - OS/2 certainly had OS/2, Win16 and Win32s.  That way customers could choose there OS and their apps independently, there would be no vendor lock-in, and the US Government could buy Windows.
Prototypes were made, big contracts were signed, NT was granted the required US Government certifications (even security certifications - as long as the floppy drive was removed, there was no network port, the serial ports were blocked up, and the computer was in a secure room with no external connections).
Then the NT POSIX subsystem was minimised and hidden, the OS/2 interface was never implemented, and Win32s was changed so that new Win32s apps would not run on OS/2.  The Microsoft pretence of compatibility and vendor independence let them add new markets to their monopoly.