>>4 /prog/ is being a ``cunt'' because you're an idiot who can't specify his question properly, but if you could do that, you'd already be able to find the answer yourself.
>>6
His question would be off-topic there. The reason he's not going to get any help here is because he's a moron and expects us to read his mind to get the details of his situation, not because it's necessarily off-topic.
>>7 His question would be off-topic here
FTFY. He's asking for tech support. The problem isn't related to programming. Sure, tech support is probably only topical in /adv/ and maybe /comp/, but /g/ seems to think it is the be-all of computing.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-08 12:06
What else information wise is there you need?
It's asked me to do a unicode build, i don't know what one is.
>>12
What the fuck is the matter with you?
So you're trying to use Visual Studio and Visual Studio is giving you that error? Is that's what's going on? Is it really that hard to guess that that is something that would have been useful to say in your first post, instead of assuming that everyone uses the same tools you do, and only those?
>>24
There is no operating system with over 90% market share. There isn't even an operating system family with over 90% market share, and it's doubtful there ever was.
>>30
No OS market share statistics are perfect, but I think the ones cited are a pretty good indication of the general ebb and flow. If you think you have some better statistics, by all means, post them.
Note that I didn't acknowledge these are the same statistics that stated Mac OS X had 10% last year, as I'm unsure, although it has around 10% now so what is the problem exactly?
>>32
My problem is that I dispute that Mac OS X has 10% market share, and the only way I can see that happening is if the statistics in question are heavily america-centric.
As for Win32, in MSVC, MS had the brilliant idea of making a type(macro TCHAR) which would represent normal characters(char) or multibyte ones in one case, and "UNICODE" (UTF-16, WCHAR, or wchar_t) in the other case (depends if UNICODE macro is defined). Similar _t* macros are defined for various API calls and libc functions. The idea is that you can build both ANSI and UNICODE applications form the same code. ANSI applications can be useful if compatibility with even old Win32 platforms is desired (9x had crappy unicode support), and in fact, most applications these days tend to be ANSI apps and only a few properly support UNICODE.
It might be worth mentioning that even if this is a MSVC extension, there is nothing preventing you from implementing a setup like this in portable C, as long as your C library has unicode versions of standard libc functions.
>>35 wchar_t is defined in wchar.h, as >>36 pointed out, and in stdtypes.h.
I was worried I was missing some obvious way of doing Unicode on other platforms, but as usual, it turns out it's you guys who don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I grepped the source of a few common utilities, and it turns out wchar_t is used quite a lot on Linux.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-08 21:31
>>33
Why would you care about the opinions of foreigners? That's the sort of bullshit that caused UNICODE in the first place!
it turns out it's you guys who don't know what the fuck you're talking about
You'are right, this is actually what's happening. No 'jokes' were made ITT.
OS X could become a serious contender to Windows if Apple completely changed the way they market themselves. Have OS X allow third-party developers to make drivers for their hardware and PC makers like Dell give their customers the option of having their PCs loaded with Windows or OS X. There would no longer be a need for the entire Hackintosh scene anymore, and it would have the potential to really kill Microsoft dominance on the PC.
>>45
Once you do that, OS X will be as unstable as Windows; probably worse, for the first few years, and that will give it a reputation that will kill it before it gets on its feet.
>>46 Once you do that, OS X will be as unstable as Windows
Not really. And if you think Windows is really unstable, then either you forgot about the dreadful 9x era (Windows 95/98/ME, especially ME.), or haven't used any version of Windows on a daily basis pre-XP.
>>49
Most of the "hardware" in Apple machines are produced by third parties. OS X has the ability to support much more hardware than it currently does. Maybe during the "beige box" era Apple produced everything inside a Macintosh, but these days, they're pretty much just flash overpriced PCs. Apple excels in software, particularly OS X and gang, also making a killing on other things, iPods, etc. So it should really re-think how it does business home computer wise.