Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Micro$oft Windows

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 14:59

Why is Windows designed in Turbo Pascal ?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 15:11

U MENA TURBO HASKAL?

Name: Sagey McSagerson 2010-03-09 15:12

Troll failure: detected
Rebooting thread

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 15:23

U MENA PHASCKAL

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 15:54

U MENA KICK BAESICK

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 16:02

This troll is so old.
Everyone knows Windows is written largely in C, with a bit of platform-specific code written in ASM. Some user-mode GUI stuff(parts of explorer, IE, similar crap) is written in C++, and some newer management stuff in C#. I can't recall anything in the core OS or base applications written in any BASIC variant, that's just stuff for the consumer. As for Turbo Pascal, ahaha, no, why would they use one of their old competitors language to write stuff in, especially a 16-bit DOS only, non-optimizing compiler. IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 17:20

>>6
Windows 1.0 is written in Pascal. Fact, not troll.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 17:43

>>7
Nothing useful has ever been written in Haskal. Fact, not troll.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 17:46

>>8
MY ANUS has been written in Haskall. Fact, not troll.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 17:47

>>7
[citation needed]

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 17:52

>>8
Facts have been written in Haskal. Fact, not troll.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 17:57

>>11
Haskal has been written in Haskal. Troll, not fact.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 18:04

>>7
Well FUCK, IHBT again. I just got a copy of Windows 1.01 and took a look at all the files. It seems it boots up from DOS like Win9x and 3.1 does, the files(executables, drivers) are either NE(New Executable) or plain old DOS EXE files(pre-windows-boot-up ones). They appear to be coded in C and x86 ASM. DOS was largely written in x86 ASM. The actual architecture resembles Win3.11 a lot, so I guess they shared a lot of the code, and Win95/98 kept some of that code as well. WinNT probably didn't keep too much, but the naming conventions for core system components still remains to this day (GDI, USER,KERNEL,SETUP,USER). I see no trace of Pascal. IHBT so hard :(

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 18:04

>>8,9,11-12
Same person[1]

1 It's Haskell.

Name: >>13 2010-03-09 18:06

To continue on that, it's a new file format that was made for Win1.0, Turbo Pascal can only compile to plain old DOS EXE files. It's impossible for TP to have generated these files, since the format in which they're made didn't even exist at that time. The functions have fairly standard prologue/epilogues and look very much like C functions. There is no trace of anything that you'd find in TP EXEs (such as borland's standard lib).

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 18:08

>>14
O RLY?

（　≖‿≖）

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 18:13

>>14
U MENA HASKAL

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 18:24

>>6
If by "C" you mean "C++", then sure. Windows (at least NT) is almost completely C++, including the Kernel.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 18:28

>>18
I WILL NOT BE TROLLED BY YOU MOTHERFUCKER.
IT'S WRITTEN ENTIRELY IN C. YOU CAN FIND THIS OUT BY DISASSEMBLING THE FUCKING KERNEL AND LOOKING AT IT.
There was also a leak of a large portion of the source code around Windows 2000, and Microsoft publishes its source code under "Windows Research Kernel" for some universities, and you can confirm exactly what it was written in, and it's C.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 18:59

It's obviously written in ruby

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 19:00

>>20
Macintosh is written in Ruby, you can see by the weaboo fanboys it has.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 19:16

pfft

Windows is written in .NET!!!!!!!!!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 19:47

>>21
``Macintosh'' is not an operating system. However, Mac OS is.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 22:49

Windows may not have been, but Mac Classic was largely written in Pascal.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 23:31

>>24

In the early days, Mac Classic was largely written in assembler.  Applications were often written in Pascal, but also often assembler or C.  HyperCard is an example of a C program from that era.  After the switch from 68K to PPC, Apple started converting the assembler to C.  There was probably 68K assembler in Mac OS 9, since Apple shipped its PPCs with a very nice emulator.

It seems like it was written in Pascal because the OS used interfaces and calling conventions that often matched Pascal.  Most of the syscalls were just illegal instructions trapped by the OS, and passed parameters in registers, which is NOT Pascal-friendly (or C-friendly, for that matter).

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 23:43

>>24-25
It shouldn't be very hard to find out what it was really written in. Most compilers and programming languages leave visible and less visible trails on their generated code.
Here's some examples:
In the case of assembly, the signs are that the code can be recognized as hand-written, and may contain optimizations or lack conventions a compiler would have. For example, some coders may use some instructions which are less efficient so a compiler wouldn't use them, but they save time when coding in asm (example: pushad/popad on x86, makes saving/restoring registers easier, but it means pushing them all to the stack, and almost no compiler with a register allocator worth its salt would do that. That's just an example, you can find many many more by reading code written in ASM and comparing it with compiled code.).
In the case of Turbo Pascal, the code usually lacks optimizations, and you can find certain patterns, there's also a standard library which is usually linked in and can be easily identified. The functions may follow a very clear calling convention which is almost never violated, and so on.
Too bad I can't be arsed to find a copy of Mac Classic, but if someone does have one, they should inspect the code in a tool like IDA Pro (among others) and see what they can tell.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 0:41

>>26
You can download a bunch of old Mac OS versions for free from Apple: http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 3:50

Actually windows 3.1 is written in turbo pascal.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 11:07

>>23
``Macintosh'' is not an operating system. However, Mac OS is.
And Linux is not an operating system, etc. As no intelligent person cares about these shit platforms/computers, neither does he give a shit about pedantic naming details.

IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 14:45

http://technologizer.com/2010/03/08/the-secret-origin-of-windows/

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 15:09

>>30
Microsoft had its own version of Pascal, it had been groomed as a professional developer’s tool, and in fact was the core language Microsoft wrote many of its own software products in before it was displaced by C.

>>29-1
PWNED LOL

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 16:54

>>30
the-secret-origin-of-windows
Somebody wanted to invent a wall they could look through LOL!

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 23:40

>>29
As no intelligent person cares about these shit platforms/computers, neither does he give a shit about pedantic naming details.
Funny how you are drawing your conclusions on such systems from this arbitrary, imaginary ``intelligent person''. And certainly people are taking a look at OS X being that it's possible to run it on non-Apple hardware, and that it's also basically another UNIX now. But of course since you cannot think for yourself and allow this ``intelligent person'' to make up your mind for you, you wouldn't bother to actually understand.

Name: ​​​​​​​​​​ 2010-09-07 17:04

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-09 2:20

Name: Anonymous 2013-10-06 14:00



    When I was 5 years old I bumped a thread and I feel bad now

Name: Anonymous 2013-10-06 16:23

>>32,33,35
>le pedophile sage
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -