ATL / WTL / STL

Inserting elements invalidates no iterators, and removing elements invalidates only those iterators that had specifically pointed at the removed elements.

CPP_Student wrote:

Does the lack of books on the "older" technologies, like MFC, ATL, and COM mean that they are perhaps only supported by legacy systems

CPP_Student wrote:

and potential employers would be more likely to want .NET experience?

CPP_Student wrote:

Howdy! I have been learning C++ and windows programming with MFC since I got canned from my mainframe job last year. I had bought the COM and ATL 3.0 book years ago, and decided to read it a few weeks ago. However, I get to chapter 9 and see that the stuff covered has been redesigned with ATL 7.0. There is only one book out there written since 3.0 that covers 8.0. I have VS pro 2005, so I could continue to learn ATL 8.

CPP_Student wrote:

But I am unsure if it is worth it for me to learn ATL/COM now, or if I should dive into C# and .NET, which I know nothing about, but have just bought some books on for .NET 2.0. Does the lack of books on the "older" technologies, like MFC, ATL, and COM mean that they are perhaps only supported by legacy systems, and potential employers would be more likely to want .NET experience?

CPP_Student wrote:

I should add that I have been learning DirectX, and writing a 3D modeler in C++/MFC, and was thinking of learning ATL/COM to separate the loading of models from various file formats, and support a plug-in capability (though I know nothing about this).

Zac Howland wrote:

Don't let the mass flooding of the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble with all the books on .Net convince you that MFC, ATL, COM, STL, etc are out of date.

Zac Howland wrote:

.Net is a very small segment of the programming jobs available (and for the most part, among the lowest paying positions as well).

Zac Howland wrote:

COM is especially important since it is one of the foundation technologies for .Net (.Net does a very nice job of hiding that from you).

Zac Howland wrote:

By the way, if you are a strong C/C++ programmer, you should be able to pick up C# (and even Java) with only a week or 2 as your learning curve.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

They're not quite out-of-date but IMO if they're all you can offer it won't be enough to keep you in work. That's certainly been my experience as a contractor.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

Well, in the Windows world at least this is not the case.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

Maybe so but you won't need to know it for 99% of interviews.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

Well, it needs a bit more than that. The main learning-curve is the .NET framework. Moreover, even if it does take you only a few weeks to be comfortable you somehow have to convince employers that you've got a year or two's commercial experience just to get a look-in. It shouldn't be this way but that's life.

CPP_Student wrote:

Basically I feel like I am floundering at times. I was hoping that eventually there will be a need for .Net or C++ programmers that know DirectX

CPP_Student wrote:

but the politics of working for a larger company that is owned and run by bankers who are so far removed from the work we do that they make incredibly stupid decisions, along with the inner politics of my area that included major cronyism, killed my work ethic.

CPP_Student wrote:

I am hoping that the need for 3D programmers will increase in applications other than just games, as the hardware gets better and Microsoft improves its support with managed DirectX and Vista's better support of it.

Zac Howland wrote:

As a contractor, things are a bit different. You are expected to come in and not have a learning curve.

Zac Howland wrote:

When you are looking to be an employee, things are not so strict.

Zac Howland wrote:

With a solid foundation in C/C++ and the common libraries (STL and MFC in particular), 95% of companies will call you back for second and third interviews.

Zac Howland wrote:

The learning curve is not very high when you know C++ and are trying to go to any other language.

Zac Howland wrote:

A huge percentage of programming postions don't even touch Windows.

Zac Howland wrote:

Keep in mind ... the second largest consumer software producer is EA. 85% of their code (non-script code that is) is written in C/C++ and has nothing to do with .Net.

Zac Howland wrote:

If you are just looking to answer interview questions in hopes that they won't ask you anything dealing with the word "how", then you are correct.

Zac Howland wrote:

Again, this is the case if you are an independent contractor. It is not the case when you are applying for a position within the company.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

Possibly the reality is different when you get into the actual job but in the actual job ads this isn't the case.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

I know, but this guy has had an MS background and suggests by his interest in COM that he plans to remain in this domain in the near future. If so, it would seem advisable to pick up .NET whether he likes it or not.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

most of them do just concentrate on silly "what is" questions

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

"If you have 2 years' experience in C++ we will X-train you into Delphi. "

Today, such ads. are few and far between. And where you do see them they're often aimed at recent graduates rather than more senior developers.

Zac Howland wrote:

it tends to go along with the culture of advocating drone programmers that produce massive amounts of code quickly instead of taking the time to think about the problem and what problems may come along with it down the road before writing the code

Zac wrote:

I would at least finish reading the ATL 3.0 book first. The reason is simple: in many of the new books, they refer to "this has been changed from version 3.0 ... and this is why." If you have at least a mild understanding of the way things were, you will gain and understanding of why they changed it and what may have to be changed in systems that are upgrading their libraries. From experience, that is a popular interview question.

SodomFighter666 wrote:

I know, that the vector needs a base class of all my object

vector<Basis*> V;
A *a = new A;
V.push_back(a);
V[0]->reset();
for(vector<Basis*>::iterator i = V.begin(); i != V.end(); i++)
{
  delete *i;
}

SodomFighter666 wrote:

I know that the STL-Vector work with templates, so the call 'V.insert(V.begin(), a);' transforme the object a to the instance of 'Basis'.

SodomFighter666 wrote:

... and special methods (like 'A::loadGUI()')?

struct ICommon
{
	virtual ~ICommon(){};
	virtual void loadGUI() = 0;
	virtual void reset() = 0;
};

template <class T, bool t_bManaged = true>
class Wrapper : public ICommon
{
public:
	Wrapper(T* pObject)
	{
		m_pObject = pObject;
	}

	~Wrapper()
	{
		if(t_bManaged) delete m_pObject;
	}

	void reset()
	{
		m_pObject->reset();
	}

	void loadGUI()
	{
		m_pObject->loadGUI();
	}

	T* m_pObject;
};

class A {
public:
	void reset(void)
	{
		cout << "Class A reset ! \n";
	}

	void loadGUI(void)
	{
		cout <<"Class A loadGUI! \n";
	}
};

class B {
public:
	void reset(void)
	{
		cout << "Class B reset ! \n";
	}

	void loadGUI(void)
	{
		cout <<"Class B loadGUI! \n";
	}
};

vector<ICommon*> V;

V.push_back(new Wrapper<A>(new A));
V.push_back(new Wrapper(new B));

for(vector<ICommon*>::iterator i = V.begin(); i != V.end(); i++)
{
	(*i)->reset();
	(*i)->loadGUI();
}

for(vector<ICommon*>::iterator i = V.begin(); i != V.end(); i++)
{
	delete *i;
}

class Base
{
public:
	virtual void loadGUI() = 0;
	virtual void reset() = 0;
};

class MyWidget : 	public QtWidget,
			public virtual Base
{
	// all of MyWidgets stuff
	virtual void loadGUI() {/* does something*/}
	virtual void reset() {/* does something else*/}
};

vector<Base*> myVector;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
	myVector.push_back(new MyWidget);
}

void loadGUIs(const MyWidget*& widget)
{
	widget->loadGUI();
}

// in some section of code
for_each(myVector.begin(), myVector.end(), loadGUIs);

V.push_back(new Wrapper(new A));<br />
V.push_back(new Wrapper(new B));

class Base : public QWidget<br />
{<br />
public:<br />
	// all of MyWidgets stuff<br />
	virtual void loadGUI() = 0;<br />
	virtual void reset() = 0;<br />
};<br />
<br />
class MyWidget : public Base<br />
{<br />
	// all of MyWidgets stuff<br />
	virtual void loadGUI() {/* does something*/}<br />
	virtual void reset() {/* does something else*/}<br />
};<br />
<br />
vector<Base*> V;<br />
<br />
V.push_back(new MyWidget);<br />
...