Re: Windows XP support

Well that sounds a little harsh.  What Ryan's main point is that simpler
code is better.  It's easier to follow, and easier to maintain.  I'm sure
if someone volunteered to implement and maintain Win9x/NT, and it was done
well, it wouldn't be rejected.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, BenoitRen <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
>
> NT-based OSes like Windows XP had guaranteed Unicode support, which meant
> we didn't need two codepaths through everything or any understanding of
> what a "codepage" is, which simplifies our work immensely
>
>
> Every time Win9x support is dropped, this is one of the reasons mentioned.
> It's as if open source developers are parroting it from each other. I don't
> buy it, because SDL wouldn't be the first project to need Unicode support
> across Win9x and WinNT. Mozilla has done it for ages in their software, a
> Unicode layer library by Microsoft exists, and an open-source variant of
> said library exists as well. That's several compatibility layers you can
> reuse in one way or another. Yet people act like those don't exist.
>
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org