zlacker

>>taubek+(OP)
Its funny how many quirks of UNIX/C/etc go back to the severe limitations of early day computers. Which is why using modern languages like Rust and its compiler really feels like coming up for air.

>>sdgdfg+h6
I think Windows is even more permeated with legacy

Off the top of my head:

Nobody questions why main drive is C:, remnant of [an] early computer having two floppy (not sure) drives on A: and B:

Or more recent - C:/Windows/System32 holds 64 bit executables; 32 bit exectuables live in C:/Windows/SysWOW64

>>alecmg+Ca
As a user, the main one that really annoys me is the "Program Files" vs "Program Files (x86)" split. I can kinda see why they have to be different folders, but why did they have to name it "... (x86)" instead of "... (32bit)"?

You can call the 64 bit architecture x64 all you like, but it's still using the x86 instruction set and it's frequently referred to as x86-64, so naming that 32 bit only folder "... (x86)" will just make things more confusing than they should be.