Re: Byte ordering

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:55:59 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 13:37:41 -0400, EricP wrote:
 

The Posix interface support was there so *MS* could bid on US
government and military contracts which, at that time frame, were
making noise about it being standard for all their contracts.
The Posix DLLs didn't come with WinNT, you had to ask MS for them
specially. 

 
And that whole POSIX subsystem was so sadistically, unusably awful,
it just had to be intended for show as a box-ticking exercise,
nothing more.
 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOeku3hDzrM>
 

Back then "object oriented" and "micro-kernel" buzzwords were all
the rage. 

 
OO still lives on in higher-level languages. Microsoft’s one attempt
to incorporate its OO architecture--Dotnet--into the lower layers of
the OS, in Windows Vista, was an abject, embarrassing failure which
hopefully nobody will try to repeat.
>

It sounds like you confusing .net with something unrelated.
Probably with Microsoft's failed WinFS filesystem.
WinFS was *not* object-oriented.

AFAIK, .net is hugely successful application development technology
that was never incorporated into lower layers of the OS.

If you are interested in failed attempts to incorporate .net into
something it does not fit then please consider Silverlight.
But then, the story of Silverlight is not dissimilar to the story of
in-browser Java, with main difference that the latter was more harmful
to the industry.

On the other hand, some stubborn holdouts are still fond of
microkernels -- you just have to say the whole idea is pointless, and
they come out of the woodwork in a futile attempt to disagree ...

Seems, you are not ashamed to admit your trolling tactics.