• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1411 months ago

      Say whatever you want about Microsoft, but they don’t mess around with backwards compatibility.

      • @riodoro1
        link
        1511 months ago

        It’s easy to be backwards compatible when you’re backwards in general.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          711 months ago

          I once heard some YouTuber say Windows uses \ in path names instead of / like everyone else because Microsoft thinks backwards.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            As what often happens, using \ for paths is for backwards compatibility.

            Neither CP/M nor MS-DOS 1.0 had folders. When folders were added in MS-DOS 2.0, the syntax had to be backwards compatible. DOS already used forward slashes for command-line options (e.g. DIR /W) so using them for folders would have been ambiguous - does that DIR command have a /W option, or is it viewing the contents of the W directory at the root of the drive? Backslashes weren’t used for anything so they used them for folders.

            This is the same reason why you can’t create files with device names like con, lpt1, and so on. DOS 2.0 has to retain backwards compatibility with 1.0 where you could do something like TYPE foo.txt > LPT1 to send a document to a printer. The device names are reserved globally so they can work regardless of what folder you’re in.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          211 months ago

          Well, better to be backwards with backwards compatibility than to just be backwards.

          looks at Apple

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 months ago

      it could’ve just been windows nine. or any other word that isn’t a number

      But “nine” is a word that is a number