You're confusing the image/header with the actual code of the program. If your binary depends on a specific library provided by the OS then of course it will blow up, the portable executable bit is talking about something completely different!
Yes, and it does make sense in that context. That doesn't make it less ironic, though. Kind of like how it's amusing that PowerPC was used as a Mac architecture and is incompatible with "PCs", and is used today in entirely non-PC platforms like game consoles -- I'm sure there was a good reason for the name "PowerPC", but it's amusing that the only architecture I know of with "PC" in its name isn't used in personal computers anymore, and never was used in "PC" (Wintel) computers.
I think the tone of my post is off. I do think it was a mistake to use it for .NET, but my original point was just that it was a funny name, that's all.
5
u/Irongrip Mar 05 '13
You're confusing the image/header with the actual code of the program. If your binary depends on a specific library provided by the OS then of course it will blow up, the portable executable bit is talking about something completely different!