|
I'd like to know what happens when you try to run AMD/Intel complied code on the wrong type of processor.
Maybe if you use this feature you need to compile for all targets and have an application loader stub which runs the appropiate exe depending on processor type.
|
|
|
|
|
Would like to suggest Everett:
- Make WTL a standard library like MFC.
- Truely upgrade MFC, split OLE and UI code to make MFC leaner. Or upgrade WTL/ATL to take over MFC.
- More workable and reasonable native C/C++ samples like Nile.com 2! Don't put simple sample just to demonstrate an API.
*** Manage code is for kids, death of true software engineer start with .NET ***
|
|
|
|
|
|
*** Manage code is for kids, death of true software engineer start with .NET ***
C++ is for wimps. Long live assembler
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
C++ is for wimps. Long live assembler
Assembler! Pah!
Weakling - I only program in hex
|
|
|
|
|
hex!Pah!
Weakling - I only program with 0,1
|
|
|
|
|
0,1!Pah!
Weakling - I only use 0s
|
|
|
|
|
I use the microphone and tell the computer what to do .
I am the MIGHTY KEEPER of the BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE . Contact me to get your copy .
|
|
|
|
|
Will VC++ Resource Editor ever support toolbars with more than 16 colors?
Or any new Common Control's features like true-color icons/bitmaps and icons/bitmaps with alpha channel?
Will Everett "fix" that? My guess is it won't...
Paolo
------
"airplane is cool, but space shuttle is even better" (J. Kaczorowski)
|
|
|
|
|
Someone posted a while ago an article with C# source code obviously made with Everett beta. Guess what, the project files wouldn't even open in VC#.NET 1.0, and the program itself wouldn't even run because of an hardcoded .NET virtual machine path somewhere in the compiled code (the path was generated by the use of the IDE, not by the developer).
I thus question the ability of MS to :
- introduce a new release without forcing people to upgrade their code as well (which is of course a highly questionable money concern), and prevent them from using it any longer with VS.NET 1.0 (for instance, in the .csproj file from Everett beta, the change I saw was an xml attribute value, and it was blocking the whole .csproj backward or forward depending on the version you had).
- promote versioned products that don't explicitely require users to install ALL POSSIBLE .NET run-time versions instead of only one, because the target code is highly coupled with the .NET run-time version. If you don't have the .NET run-time, or you have a wrong version, you'll be rewarded with a nasty message box, and that's all. As soon as Everett is RTM, developers and users will have to download and install the associated .NET run-time, in addition to their existing one. Users will resent a lot developers for being forced to download again and again tons of megabytes. Developers are going to have a hard time to figure out what version to compile against.
Back to real work : D-21.
|
|
|
|
|
In the .NET Framework 1.1 Beta FAQ you could notice that : "... programs compiled with .NET Framework 1.0 will also run in .NET Framework 1.1 while programs compiled with .NET Framework 1.1 ONLY runs within the same framework version..."
As Everett is using the .NET Framework 1.1 as base class library it should be clear that those programs developed with 1.1 and Everett could not be used with an older version (without changes) as the API (FCL) has changed too.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
"... programs compiled with .NET Framework 1.0 will also run in .NET Framework 1.1 while programs compiled with .NET Framework 1.1 ONLY runs within the same framework version..."
No. See for yourself[^].
There is NO guarantee a program compiled against the .NET run-time release 1.xxxxxx will ever work if the user has .NET run-time release 1.yyyyyyy.
Anonymous wrote:
As Everett is using the .NET Framework 1.1 as base class library it should be clear that those programs developed with 1.1 and Everett could not be used with an older version (without changes) as the API (FCL) has changed too.
Ok, this means the life cycle of every large project depending on .NET should not exceed a .NET run-time upgrade.
In other words, instead of developing the core of your product, you are going to spend a very significant time just upgrading the code to continue to be up-to-date with what MS releases. Oh oh, this must be a joke. No decision maker would invest in .NET knowing this.
What about customers in between ?
Back to real work : D-20.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
In other words, instead of developing the core of your product, you are going to spend a very significant time just upgrading the code to continue to be up-to-date with what MS releases.
Garbage. The truth is that versions of .NET runtime can live side by side, and run side by side. I can still write code for .NET 1.0 and my client can have the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.5 runtimes intalled, no problems.
I recommend the Richter book on the .NET framework, it explains all of this.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Garbage. The truth is that versions of .NET runtime can live side by side, and run side by side. I can still write code for .NET 1.0 and my client can have the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.5 runtimes intalled, no problems.
I recommend the Richter book on the .NET framework, it explains all of this.
Your reference is your books. My reference is the blocking message boxes I see in front of me.
.config files can help. But the end-user experience prevails. Thanks.
Hope the future tells those message boxes were just an imagination of me...
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
Your reference is your books. My reference is the blocking message boxes I see in front of me.
I'm sorry, but if Richter says it works, and you say it's not working for you, then as far as I'm concerned, you're doing it wrong. We're not just talking any writer here, the man has earned the right for me to presume he is right.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm sorry, but if Richter says it works, and you say it's not working for you, then as far as I'm concerned, you're doing it wrong. We're not just talking any writer here, the man has earned the right for me to presume he is right.
I have mentioned .config files, I guess this says it all.
Leave Richter where he is.
I am saying the configuration required to make sure a .NET application works on end-user machines is by far as buggy and fuzzy as were the former MS run-times. As long as you can't afford a full-time employee testing all possible environments, you'll end up with applications popping a message box (GPF, simple error, ...). That said, I am customer obsessed, and as such I don't care that MS marketing saying developers that : Oh you are a f***, the latest PDC showed developers how to handle that issue, you'd better attend it next time.
In addition, you can't have been testing VB.NET apps. Do you know that some required interop assemblies are not installed by the .NET run-time : you'll have to install them by hand ?
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
As long as you can't afford a full-time employee testing all possible environments, you'll end up with applications popping a message box (GPF, simple error, ...
I don't believe ANY environment requires a full time employee testing every possible configuration. Anyone who doesn't do SOME testing obviously hates their customer though.
.S.Rod. wrote:
In addition, you can't have been testing VB.NET apps. Do you know that some required interop assemblies are not installed by the .NET run-time : you'll have to install them by hand ?
It's pretty clear that MS is shooting the old nag that is VB. They had no need for C# excepting that the VB name is beyond redemption, it will always be associated with bad progams and bad programmers.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe ANY environment requires a full time employee testing every possible configuration. Anyone who doesn't do SOME testing obviously hates their customer though.
The environment you mention is standard QA procedure where I work. We have vmWare, a library of images for every MS OS, in every language, with every permutation of IE, OE and/or Office, and every QA-released build we do gets tested against this library. As our product is internationally distributed, it is the only way to go.
But generally, every place I've worked at so far had a somewhat similar setup -- at the very least, we'd test English 98, ME, 2K, XP.
As far as full time employee testing this... yes, it's called a QA engineer... that's why they get paid the big bucks to click on those buttons.
Christian Graus wrote:
It's pretty clear that MS is shooting the old nag that is VB. They had no need for C# excepting that the VB name is beyond redemption, it will always be associated with bad progams and bad programmers.
Actually I thought MS was shooting the old nag that was Java?
----------------------------------------
----I said my name wasn't important
---------------------------SlartiBartFast
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene Polonsky wrote:
Actually I thought MS was shooting the old nag that was Java?
That one isn't theirs to shoot. But you're right, the other reason for C# is to annoy Scott McNealy.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
I am quite delighted to see at last someone from a real software company underlines the simple yet often underestimated testing and redistribution issues.
I know nobody should ever trust the so-called senior software developers here in Codeproject, claiming there is almost no need to test applications, and your answer comforts my feelings about the actual lack of value of Codeproject when it comes to real world issues.
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
and your answer comforts my feelings about the actual lack of value of Codeproject when it comes to real world issues.
Why wastin' your time than?
Cheers
Martin
PS: I know if you don't have to say anything constructive you should shut up, but I couldn't resist....
"Situation normal - all fu***d up"
Illuminatus!
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
They had no need for C# excepting that the VB name is beyond redemption, it will always be associated with bad progams and bad programmers.
All right, Christian, I've always respected you for being a man with a lot of knowledge, which you are. But this hatred for VB is getting old, and while I can understand your devotion to C++ (it's a fantastic language, after all), the above comment insults anyone who programs in VB, by choice or not. As I've mentioned before, I myself am a programmer who works with VB AND C++, so I know the strengths and weaknesses of both languages. I also know how to program using proper object orientated methods. It's never been about the language you choose to write with. I've seen some pretty shi**y, poorly written C++ programs. It's about HOW you program. Did prior versions of VB allow for easier, and frankly sloppy coding? Absolutely. But blame the lazy programmer for not taking the time to learn how the language works, and how to make it work effectively, not the language itself. Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable.
VB.NET is a HUGE improvement over prior versions, and between it finally beeing an OOP language, and everything being strictly typed, it really is no longer the "toy" language that it used to be.
Jamie Nordmeyer
Portland, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
the above comment insults anyone who programs in VB, by choice or not.
That is so only if you choose to read it that way. If that were my intent, I would be insulting myself.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
As I've mentioned before, I myself am a programmer who works with VB AND C++
Take a number. I don't use VB much, but I *do* have to use it. I use VBScript a LOT.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I also know how to program using proper object orientated methods.
Funny you mention that, a workmate did a .NET course recently, and all the VB programmers who attended the course ( everyone there bar him ) could not understand why you would want to do that, ever. Or did I already tell that story, thus eliciting this response ? In either case, I think you're missing my point. Far more code is written in VB than C++, but who runs it ? How much of the code you buy/run is VB ? Close to none. Like the sig says, VB has made it easy for idiots to code. I have never claimed that all VB programmers are idiots, and my comment about the name being beyond redeption is easy to prove. How many different people have I quoted making negative comments about VB ? How much CRAP code is available to download on the web in VB ? How much VB code has been the nucleus of a successful commerical product ? I have no doubt that it's possible to write good apps if they are of a generic nature in VB, especially VB.NET ( hell, with the CLR I doubt there is any difference between C# and VB.NET byte code ), but that's not my point. My point is too many bad programmers have muddied the NAME of VB, hence the need for a new language if Microsoft are to be taken seriously.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
It's never been about the language you choose to write with.
Yes, it is, to a degree. Otherwise why have VB, C#, C++ at all ? Why not code in C ? Or assembler ?
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I've seen some pretty shi**y, poorly written C++ programs.
Hell, I've written some.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
It's about HOW you program. Did prior versions of VB allow for easier, and frankly sloppy coding? Absolutely. But blame the lazy programmer for not taking the time to learn how the language works, and how to make it work effectively, not the language itself.
The core problem is this. If I start programming and I ask 'whats the most powerful language, the one that will give me everything I need to write quality Windows programs', the answer is C++. If I ask 'whats the easiest language to learn, the one that requires me to think the least', the answer is VB. By and large, as yourself what sort of person is likely to ask either of those questions.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
VB.NET is a HUGE improvement over prior versions, and between it finally beeing an OOP language, and everything being strictly typed, it really is no longer the "toy" language that it used to be.
So that brings us full circle. There is no doubt you can do pretty much the same job in VB.NET and C#. So why do we have C# ? Because VB has always been a toy language, as you say, and the name is now beyond redemption, right or wrong there will always be people who won't take anything seriously if it's written in VB.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
My point is too many bad programmers have muddied the NAME of VB
OK, excellent point, and I agree. More code is written in Visual Basic, yet most of the professional apps on the market are written in C++, because the quality of code tends to be much better in the C++ written apps. But there are a lot of people out there that will completely shun something (take racism, for example) before they've really taken the time to understand it. It sounds as though you have. Many haven't, and thus, the source of my frustration with this whole VB vs. C++ war.
Christian Graus wrote:
So why do we have C# ? Because VB has always been a toy language, as you say, and the name is now beyond redemption, right or wrong there will always be people who won't take anything seriously if it's written in VB.
Maybe they should have just given it a new name. B#? (Basic Sharp?) Um. Maybe not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Funny you mention that, a workmate did a .NET course recently, and all the VB programmers who attended the course ( everyone there bar him ) could not understand why you would want to do that, ever. Or did I already tell that story
I'm afraid I missed this one. Do you have a link to it on CodeProject, if it's in here? Sounds like a funny read.
Jamie Nordmeyer
Portland, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I'm afraid I missed this one.
That's pretty much the gist of it, anyhow.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
Many haven't, and thus, the source of my frustration with this whole VB vs. C++ war.
Although I do complain about VB often enough, in this case it seems you agree with what I was saying, no matter how good VB becomes, it's beyond being marketable because of the perception that goes with it.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
|
|
|
|
|