My arguement to Muzzys claim that Windows is the easiest platform to develop for.

[Kintaro]

(16:45:52) Robbo: god damn it was a pain in the ass to get directx 9 to instantiate a buffer from my array...
(16:46:44) Robbo: had to convert from a short[] to byte[] , then create a wave header on the fly, stick it in front of the buffer, then pass that to directX...
(16:47:22) Kintaro: Haha, so much for my windoid friends claiming "Windows is the easiest platform to develop for"
(16:48:58) Robbo: lol, still makes me more money than linux

[muzzy]

Troll, troll, troll ya post, gently down the stream...

That example above makes no sense. In response, I'm going to claim that linux is the hardest platform to develop for, ever, because the clone() syscall no longer has CLONE_PID supported. This makes it completely impossible to perform this task anymore, just imagine if you had to support some old software that DEPENDED on this feature! You'd be completely wasted. Thus, I've PROVEN that linux isn't backwards compatible, and as of such it's the worst platform out there to develop for.

Pretty solid reasoning, huh?

[Kintaro]

Very solid.

Sex?

[Pathos]

Directx is a giant hack

Microsoft do try keep everything backwards compatible, its been there biggest strength and greatest weakness. The Linux operating system isn't afraid of change because it aims to do things right. Windows makes things work.

[anphanax]

Heh, well, about that hack...

"Microsoft is currently working on a large update to DirectX API. Originally called Windows Graphics Foundation, DirectX 10, and later DirectX Next, but currently referred to as Direct3D 10, it will appear as part of Windows Vista." (Source 1)

"However, Direct3D 10 will not be backward compatible with current versions of DirectX, so computer games made for Direct3D 10 will not function on any other model of DirectX. In addition, Direct3D 10 will incorporate Microsoft Shader Model 4.0." (Source 1)

Developers trying to target both XP and Vista machines seem to have some work ahead of them. I've even heard that DX9 and lower programs are "emulated" on Vista, which can't be good for speed. If that's true, I have to wonder what people at Microsoft are thinking exactly.

Source 1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#The_future_of_DirectX>

[anphanax]

What kind of "development" was Muzzy talking about?

Some tools come to mind to make things easier:
http://vtcl.sourceforge.net/ - Visual TCL
http://java.sun.com/ - Java (There are decent IDEs, if you're willing to hunt for them, e.g. NetBeans, Eclipse, even jGrasp; Java can give a native feel via it's LookAndFeel support, and it CAN make desktop applications regardless of the FUD surrounding this. If you just HAVE to have a native launcher, it shouldn't be that hard to write a program that basically runs another program [I don't think i'm over-simplifying])
http://vdkbuilder.sourceforge.net/ - VDKBuilder
http://glade.gnome.org/ - Glade
http://doc.trolltech.com/2.3/designer.html - QT Designer

Borland's Kylix is not mentioned, since Borland apparently abandonded it (and no upgrade path? how nice of them...).

Oh, and as for Java not being "EASY", how exactly is the new VB .NET 2005 easy? Considering it pretty much has every feature of C# now. People migrating from VB6 who think they understand what "OOP" is all about are going to be in for some major headaches (especially if they use Option Strict On, which you should because it's good practice [and besides, using DirectCast is fun]). I'll admit having everything together in Visual Studio speeds up development time, but you kind of need to be able to survive and write code at a decent pace WITHOUT IT.

[Aloone_Jonez]

If DirectX<9 is emulated it might not be as slow as you think, if they've any sense they'll use a compatability layer like WINE, I can't see them using full emulation.

[Pathos]

Microsoft vista would flop if everyones games don't work at least as good as they did on XP.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Come on they can't be that stupid.