The Sinclair QL Forum

mk79 wrote:By the way, he's been posting a new blog post every weekday since 2003.

Nobody said you did you are just repeating what someone has said 20 years after the event.

M68008 wrote:No need for conspiracy theories,

Different views of insufficient data don't make a conspiracy. Please show me where it says Windows was written in assembler preferably by the person that developed it.
I can see that if Windows was written in assembler and all the applications were in Pascal, as per the Quote from Norms indicated blog, then it made sense to make the assembly code conform. I just remember reading that Windows on my 286 was written in Pascal when I was trying to write a driver. There is no conspiracy.

Ruptor wrote:

mk79 wrote:By the way, he's been posting a new blog post every weekday since 2003.

Nobody said you did you are just repeating what someone has said 20 years after the event.

And that "someone" has access to and very intimate knowledge of the Windows source code from at least 3.1 till today.

I can see that if Windows was written in assembler and all the applications were in Pascal, as per the Quote from Norms indicated blog,

The "While Microsoft had its own version of Pascal, it had been groomed as a professional developer’s tool, and in fact was the core language Microsoft wrote many of its own software products in before it was displaced by C." quote is in the timeframe of Turbo Pascal and thus DOS. I couldn't find out what language "Microsoft Word" for DOS for example was written in. But the source code for "Word for Windows 1.1" from 1989 is available and it's all C.

What is true is that both the Windows 1.0 and 2.0 SDKs still had support libraries for and a single sample application written in Pascal. The rest was C. The 3.0 SDK dropped support for Pascal altogether.

The Windows 3.1 drivers were all written in assembler as can be seen in the Windows 3.1 DDK.

Ruptor wrote:Different views of insufficient data don't make a conspiracy.

Fair, and I think whether Pascal was used is a legitimate and interesting question! Marcel's link settles it as far as I am concerned, as I think if using Pascal was the main reason for the calling convention, Raymond would probably know about it and there would be no reason for him to lie in his blog article. The man is very knowledgeable, pragmatic and accurate. The "conspiracy" part was just the way I perceived your implication that the "Net'" may be hiding the Pascal usage from us for nationalistic reasons.