MSFT support for XP SP 0/1/2 have come and gone. Why would *we* concern ourselves with a platform that, otherwise, provides no support?
(Rhetorical question. Anything pre-XP SP3 should be out of the question no matter what... and, uhh, let's use security as a simple open-and-shut-case argument.) - nasser On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Rivera, Rafael <raf...@withinwindows.com>wrote: > On 5/20/2010 4:03 PM, Trent Nelson wrote: > > I'm perplexed why anyone would want to forgo the advantages of C++ for > > C; I can make my C++ DLLs just as small as C ones. And, like, what if > > I want a linked list, or a hash, or a set, are we planning on writing > > all of those from scratch? Even string handling alone seems like a > > huge win. > > The major concern was dependencies. If we move to C++, we'd have to then > start binding to, redistribute, and service the Microsoft Visual C++ > runtimes. If we used the latest version of the runtimes, for example, > we'd drop support for Windows XP Service Pack 0, 1, and 2 machines plus > exclude anyone using the Starter Edition SKU. (The latest runtimes don't > install on these platforms.) > > /rafael > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers > Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
