RE: [MUD-Dev] Sockets

[Chris Gray <cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA>]

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock:]

> Not altogether true... any Windows program can have one (and only one)
> console. So you can write a GUI application that HAS NO VISIBLE GUI and
> instead uses console I/O for input and output. This gives you pretty much
> the best of both worlds; you can create windows and just not display them.
> This way, you get all the Windows stuff without having to use the normal
> methods of writing the screen or creating an expectation of a WYSIWYG
> interface.

One minor problem (which may or may not matter to anyone) is that a
GUI program doesn't have access to any initial console. At least we've
never found out how to make it get at it - if anyone knows how, *please*
let me know! Thus, you have to create a new console window, which isn't
much different from creating some other GUI window. We'd love it if
GetStdHandle(STD_ERROR_HANDLE) got you the console you started the
GUI program from!

> Incidentally, I'm going to be porting my server's Windows codebase over to
> one or more flavors of UNIX (Linux, and anything else it turns out to
> compile properly under), so if I do threads (which I may not) we'll have
> something to benchmark. 
>
> Oddly, nobody has ever written much of anything anywhere about porting from
> Windows to UNIX. I have UNIX to Windows information all over the place,
> but...

Well, UNIX has been around quite a bit longer, so has a bigger pool of
stuff that people try to port. A lot of the Windows software is
commercial, or deeply entwined with the Windows way of doing things.
(Just me guessing here, of course!)

--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.

Chris Gray     cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
               http://www.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA/cg/


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev