JPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 9 months agodotnet developerprogramming.devimagemessage-square149fedilinkarrow-up11.64Karrow-down111
arrow-up11.63Karrow-down1imagedotnet developerprogramming.devJPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 9 months agomessage-square149fedilink
minus-squareactiv8r@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down4·9 months 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-up15·9 months agoThey’ll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide
minus-squaredan@upvote.aulinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-29 months 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.