JPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agodotnet developerprogramming.devimagemessage-square123fedilinkarrow-up11.65Karrow-down111
arrow-up11.64Karrow-down1imagedotnet developerprogramming.devJPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agomessage-square123fedilink
minus-squareactiv8r@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down4·1 year agoIt makes sense why they did it, but their messed up versioning was the cause to begin with. You should always assume Devs will cut corners in inappropriate ways.
minus-squareanti-idpol action@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up15·1 year agoThey’ll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide
minus-squaredan@upvote.aulinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-21 year agoThe API is fine. It returns the internal version number (which is 4.0 for Windows 95), not a string. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa. There’s no built-in API that returns “Windows 95” as a string.
It makes sense why they did it, but their messed up versioning was the cause to begin with. You should always assume Devs will cut corners in inappropriate ways.
They’ll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide
The API is fine. It returns the internal version number (which is 4.0 for Windows 95), not a string. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa. There’s no built-in API that returns “Windows 95” as a string.