> On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Julia A.Case wrote:
>
> > Quoting Stephen Davies (scldad@sdc.com.au):
> > > Not a good example I think. The 16/32-bit ODBC question says nothing about
> > > dropping features. As I said above, ODBC is ODBC: you either conform or you
> > > don't. If there happen to be differences between the levels of conformance or
> > > of performance between 16 and 32-bit models, that would be a pity but not
> > > earth shattering.
> > >
> > But there should be one code tree... With some #ifdef's not 2
> > seperate code tree's. I think this is the point everyone is making.
>
> Its kinda sad when a piece of software as small as the ODBC driver
> can't deal with two different OSs (16bit vs 32bit Windows), while
> PostgreSQL itself, substantially larger, can currently handle *how* many
> totally disparate operating systems, from totally different vendors??
>
That is very commendable but, while not trivial, the differences between
flavours of UNIX are nothing compared with the differences between W16 and W32.
I have ported some pretty major codes between UNIXes (eg gated) and I have
also ported a number of apps from W16 to W32.
I definitely prefer doing the former.
Despite the fact that we are looking for solutions to the same need and
conformance to the same spec, I cannot see anything wrong with having two
"products" to achieve that.
Cheers,
Stephen.
========================================================================
Stephen Davies Consulting scldad@sdc.com.au
Adelaide, South Australia. Voice: 61-8-82728863
Computing & Network solutions. Fax: 61-8-82741015