A lot of people want to develop on cross-platform languages because they are developing on Linux. Installing Windows just to use C# is not in the interest of much of the programming community.

And then there's the whole quality vs cross platform. Take for instance OpenGL vs DirectX. OpenGL is cross platfom, DirectX is powerful. But really OpenGL still doesn't reach all customers, you still need a computer good enough to run the program, so for a good graphics application, the amount of people your cutting off because they don't have windows is tiny compared to the number of people you're cutting off because their computer isnt good enough, so who cares, go with power.

I hear stuff like "I don't want to use the WIn API, or Direct X, or C# because it's windows - specific, I'd rather use a cross platform option". Here's the problem, some "cross platform" libraries are indeed cross platform, but most just mean "cross-linux".

For UNIX systems, a standardized C language threads programming interface has been specified by the IEEE POSIX 1003.1c standard. Implementations that adhere to this standard are referred to as POSIX threads, or Pthreads.

99% of people have windows, and almost nooone who doesn't understand programming uses linux.

Rather than using something that works on linux, and then building a windows port, why don't we do the opposite.

And then there's the whole quality vs cross platform. Take for instance OpenGL vs DirectX. OpenGL is cross platfom, DirectX is powerful.

But really OpenGL still doesn't reach all customers, you still need a computer good enough to run the program, so for a good graphics application, the amount of people your cutting off because they don't have windows is tiny compared to the number of people you're cutting off because their computer isnt good enough, so who cares, go with power.

Plus your really not cutting anyone off. Wine and Bootcamp means that windows applications run on anything. Whereas Mac and Linux applications don't usually run on windows, and are never easy to use.

Plus, if you're tech-savvy enough to use linux, you know how to dual-boot, it's honestly not that hard, and if your computer is good enough to run good programs, its good enough that dual booting won't do anything bad to it. (ie probably has more than enough hard drive space)

Here's the trick to cross-platform development:

separate your app out into UI and underlying logic. IN many cases, the underlying logic can be fairly easily developed in a cross platform manner. You then create native UIs for each platform.

Or... employ the ultimate cross-platform development environment: the internet.

However the problem is that most linux programs only work on the backend. Yes there are front ends made by other people, but a CLEAN object oriented back-to-front end system rarely is the case (where it pretty much always should be).

Really the answer to all cross-platform-ness is object oriented design. Instead of hardcoding in something to handle multi-threads or functions, have the main function simply delegate the work to something else, something that can easily be replaced.

Oh and just to clarify, I meant that while OpenGL itself can reach everyone, a game with good graphics does not. Most modern video games can only play on a small percentage of computers. So using DirectX to cut an extra (tops 10%) of people from the already slim 30% (just a guess, probably pretty conservative)

Oh and I have no beef with stuff like Java ... they are just as good...

...I don't like when people say you have to use them, because they are cross-platform.

and @rdrake, my point exactly. People use stuff like that because "it's cross platform" but it's not. Yes a port exists, but it's not meant for that.

... and people will have no problem cutting out your needed libraries and subsituting their own.

(you could also compile your code into their own objects, and have the main simply provide the link between them, then make your code closed source, while the main and external interface code open sourced. Very easy to adapt to new systems, and still closed source)

Really the answer to all cross-platform-ness is object oriented design.

Or... employ the ultimate cross-platform development environment: the internet.

99% of people have windows, and almost nooone who doesn't understand programming uses linux.

What do you mean by "on the backend?" Are you referring to command line programs? If so, you are wrong. CLI programs do have an interface, it's called the command line.

You're clearly missing the *nix way. The idea is to have simple programs with a single purpose. Users can then use any combination of these programs as they wish to produce the desired result. By forcing the use of menus or a GUI you take away from that powerful scriptability.

As for "not much harder to implement," take a look at the ncurses documentation. Tell me again after reading that it's not much harder to implement.

Programs also usually come with manpages. These provide documentation. The output of -h typically does not provide as detailed information as the corresponding manpage.

The *nix way has worked for people since long before Windows ever existed. Stop wanting to change a good thing.

You're clearly missing the *nix way. The idea is to have simple programs with a single purpose. Users can then use any combination of these programs as they wish to produce the desired result. By forcing the use of menus or a GUI you take away from that powerful scriptability.

As for "not much harder to implement," take a look at the ncurses documentation. Tell me again after reading that it's not much harder to implement.

Programs also usually come with manpages. These provide documentation. The output of -h typically does not provide as detailed information as the corresponding manpage.

The *nix way has worked for people since long before Windows ever existed. Stop wanting to change a good thing.

wait... so your argument is basically, "well it worked 20 years ago, so why not still use it?" This is the 21st century. 2010. With .net and visual studio you can make a program in 1 hour that would've taken weeks to implement. GUI especially has been made easy, so why not use it?

I didn't read the whole article you provided, but i looked briefly through it. The fact that updating the console window is seperate from writing to the buffer just kinda shows how old it is. If your computer needs this, well then you fail. The amount that you write to a screen in a program won't affect the actual speed of any part of it.

So what was your point? Why did you tell me "well back in 1990, we had to do things the old fashioned way, there was no GUI, and you had to refresh the console after writing to a buffer. We also had to walk to school through ten feet of snow, uphill both ways"

Maybe I completely missed your point. I was saying that this is 2010, adding a simple menu system (even console based) takes almost no time at all as long as your using even remotely modern tools.

And I know that programs come with manpages, if you read my post you'd see what I said is they shouldn't have to. You should download a program, have it install itself, then run it, and it should just work. (simple programs of course can skip the install part). Yes we can use manpages and -h, but the majority of computer users would never be able to use your program then.

So what I'm saying is rather than spending time making sure everybody can run your program, spend a little time so everyone can use it.

Case study in the exact opposite of this: iTunes.

http://xkcd.com/619/

iTunes was a simple program. Apple then turned it into an ungodly monstrosity that nobody in their right mind enjoys using.

I cannot express how happy I was when I found out I could use a different program to load my iPod up with music.

Name one good argument why we shouldn't use GUI. With modern equipment it's easy to develop it.

Yes, we don't need GUI, but why not?

You're clearly missing the *nix way. The idea is to have simple programs with a single purpose. Users can then use any combination of these programs as they wish to produce the desired result. By forcing the use of menus or a GUI you take away from that powerful scriptability.

And to your analogy: sure we could use planes because they're fast, but if you're trying to ship a couple hundred thousand pounds of stuff across the ocean you wouldn't use planes, you'd use a cargo ship. You use each technology where it works best, and when it comes to coding it's usually better to use code that'll work on a variety of systems, and if someone wants to make it look prettier then they can do that work themselves.

Actually this is what I'm saying. I never said use only GUI, I just said why not? Yes for command line programs for experienced users who are doing super complex things are a good thing. But I see simple things taken in this direction, and it makes me sad.

A bit OT, but can you point me in the direction of aforementioned program?

why?

An analogy is that UNIX / CLI is a toolbox with screwdriver, hammer, files, wrenches, pliers, mallets, string, torches, saws and so forth. Meanwhile, Windows / GUI is a doghouse that's already built for you. The Windows way sure looks easier, right? For starters, you don't have to be a carpenter, you don't need to invest any time, and it's already done for you, right? Great...but what if your dog is too big? What if you wanted to store horses instead? What if you actually wanted to build a house, dammit?

Good luck. Guess you'd better buy House 7 now, hadn't you?

I would never say that CLI is useless and unneccassary, it's just not the only way to do things. And whenever your developing programs that are going to be used by normal people, you can't exactly use CLI (well you could, poeple will probably complain alot though). I've always learned there are three steps to making an awesome program. First come up with a great idea. Second, code this great idea into an amazing algorithm. Third, make the program dumb enough so that people can't screw it up. Yes when making programs for the programming community you don't have to follow the last step, but when your making them for the general public, or wanna sell them, you need to do the last step.

The fact that it must restart samba in order for the settings to apply makes it sound like it definetly wasn't developed with a front end in mind, all I'm saying is they should be. (even if they don't include a front end, make it easier for someone else to make it)

Even Visual Basics has a CLI under the Visual Studio IDE.

In the realistic buisness world, things can't always be as simple as Linux.

As simple as Linux? You mean as simple to use? I cannot imagine what other part of Linux could be considered "simple", and that's only possible for most people thanks to one or two specific distributions.

yes seperating front from back works for free software, but realistically, not everything can be free.

Yes firefox, apache and many many other things work great free, but computer science in general would not be as advanced as it is right now without people making money off of it.

Yes it would have been better if it was command line, but Turing is a language, and a IDE, it's a privately owned thing, and making it into pieces means that others could have made money off of selling IDE's or compilers or whatever. Rather the entire thing is one program, and that is property of Holt Soft. (Of course it didn't stop the company from going under, but it wouldn't of helped if they made them seperate).

In the realistic buisness world, things can't always be as simple as Linux. Things need GUI, things need easy to use libraries, that have lot's of tools to augment them.

You shouldn't only work on cross platform, you need expertise with specific, closed source, targeted applications in order to be prepared for a computer science job (not including web dev)

You have to admit that using a advanced auto-fll IDE such as visual studio 2008 C# is faster than working with a command line C++ compiler.

But what I mean is that if your developing a commercial product, sacrificing cross-platform ness for development time is not only okay, but sometimes neccassary.

When I said not including web dev, I meant not including internet programming at all, sorry should have said that. Obviously network stuff works without a GUI.

But what I mean is that if your developing a commercial product, sacrificing cross-platform ness for development time is not only okay, but sometimes neccassary.

You have to admit that using a advanced auto-fll IDE such as visual studio 2008 C# is faster than working with a command line C++ compiler.

Why do companies do this if it's so bad? The answer is it isn't. Decreases time, and effort.

[this last point is my personal opinion, not neccassarilu backed up by proof, just how i feel] And I don't know, I trust something made by a powerful company more than a cross platform library. Considering OpenGL is maintaioned by a non-profit company, they have no responsibity for errors, and don't have as much to lose as say Microsoft with DirectX. If directX gets major bugs and Microsoft doesn't fix them quickly, they are going to get in serious trouble, this comforts me.

The fact that you don't have to ever look at other functions when your trying to remember the order of arguments. And typing Ne then hitting enter is going to be faster than hitting Network (just an example word, auto fill makes typing alot faster).

And sometimes powerful tools use only specific filetypes, or libraries, and using it will decrease development time.

Here's what I don't get. All you say cross platform is easy, and benefits the end product, well then why do major companies say screw cross platform and develop for targeted systems, like directx, and windows.

And I don't know, I trust something made by a powerful company more than a cross platform library. Considering OpenGL is maintaioned by a non-profit company, they have no responsibity for errors, and don't have as much to lose as say Microsoft with DirectX. If directX gets major bugs and Microsoft doesn't fix them quickly, they are going to get in serious trouble, this comforts me.

[this last point is my personal opinion, not neccassarilu backed up by proof, just how i feel]

Wait wait wait. Let me get something straight.
You guys kept taking him seriously after he said Java had no standard?

Nobody who can be that objectively wrong is ever going to make a coherent argument.

The fact that you don't have to ever look at other functions when your trying to remember the order of arguments. And typing Ne then hitting enter is going to be faster than hitting Network (just an example word, auto fill makes typing alot faster).

The fact that you don't have to look at functions you've written before to check arguments, or using completely new functions without even having to consult documentation on argumnets is simply powerful, that's undeniable. And I'm comparing this IDE vs typing code up in a text editor and compiling from the console.

And sometimes powerful tools use only specific filetypes, or libraries, and using it will decrease development time.

Here's what I don't get. All you say cross platform is easy, and benefits the end product, well then why do major companies say screw cross platform and develop for targeted systems, like directx, and windows.

Why do companies do this if it's so bad? The answer is it isn't. Decreases time, and effort.

[this last point is my personal opinion, not neccassarilu backed up by proof, just how i feel] And I don't know, I trust something made by a powerful company more than a cross platform library.

Considering OpenGL is maintaioned by a non-profit company, they have no responsibity for errors, and don't have as much to lose as say Microsoft with DirectX. If directX gets major bugs and Microsoft doesn't fix them quickly, they are going to get in serious trouble, this comforts me.

Rather than using something that works on linux, and then building a windows port, why don't we do the opposite. 99% of people have windows, and almost nooone who doesn't understand programming uses linux. So rather than sticking these people with the task of trying to search through undocumented sites trying to find and install undocumented code (very little of which is compiled, most are source code, which is useless to the average user), why don't we give that task to those tech-savvy enough to run linux?

Note: Since you're unlikely to even read this post in its entirety, let alone look into the Khronos Group, it's an industry consortium that basically manages OpenGL.

This will be my last reply as it is clear you are not reading our posts (or simply ignoring the content as you don't respond to any of the points) and i still think you are a troll (tho with poe's law and all it's hard to tell).

Communism allows no room for growth, and open source is communism.

IMO open source doesn't provide an entirely sustainable system of growth, yes there are universities investing time and money into research, but again, where does that come from? Mostly from private corporations interested in using the research in their own products. Communism allows no room for growth, and open source is communism. Yes they are a lot of great things about it, but it's not completely sustainable.