Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. Is there an
implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for auto-inlining? I am
more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com) 30  19655 
The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET runtime/JIT is
allowed to inline functions, and often does.
--
--Grant
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. Is there an
implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for auto-inlining? I
am more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
Just a quick note:
'inline' is ignored by many C and C++ compilers, as the compiler can
generally make a better decision about what to inline and what not to inline
than the programmer.
--
Eric Gunnerson
Visit the C# product team at http://www.csharp.net
Eric's blog is at http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/ericgu/
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET runtime/JIT
is allowed to inline functions, and often does.
--
--Grant
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. Is there an
implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for auto-inlining?
I am more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
I guess.
They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
to Templates in C++.
As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance
scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
Check this out: http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate doing any
web stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I think
that C++ is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
runtime/JIT is allowed to inline functions, and often does.
--
--Grant
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. Is
there an implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
auto-inlining? I am more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
If you haven't prejitted your assembly with ngen.exe your assembly will be
jitted. The same for a web assembly.
Now why is C# castrated? It is the most beautiful OO language I've ever
seen. Using your analogy, you can see C++ as a transvestite ;).
Ask yourself, do you really want to think about whether a function should be
inlined or not? Well, I don't.
Greetz and good luck with your exploration,
-- Rob.
Will Pittenger wrote: Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate doing any
web stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think that C++ is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). ----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
runtime/JIT is allowed to inline functions, and often does.
--
--Grant
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. Is there
an implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
auto-inlining? I am more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. ----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library. Such a
library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning CStrings
and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What would be
the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I am
sorry, but the jury is still out.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
I guess.
They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
to Templates in C++.
As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance
scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate doing any
web stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I think
that C++ is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET runtime/JIT is allowed to inline functions, and often does.
--
--Grant
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. Is
there an > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
auto-inlining? I am
> more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
>
>
Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
a wrapper.
That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
Abstract classes and methods
and multiple derivation
Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
Let's turn the tables...
What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
in C++?
What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
the runtime and compiler?
What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
fancy magic or special #defines?
What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
baggage?
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
Such a library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning CStrings and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I
am sorry, but the jury is still out.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
I guess.
They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
to Templates in C++.
As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance
scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing any web
> stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think that C++
> is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
runtime/JIT
> is
> > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> >
> > --
> > --Grant
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no > rights.
> >
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword.
Is there an
> > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
auto-inlining?
> I
> > am
> > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already on
a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and older MFC
based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs. Perhaps that
DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good luck.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
a wrapper.
That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
Abstract classes and methods
and multiple derivation
Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
Let's turn the tables...
What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
in C++?
What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
the runtime and compiler?
What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
fancy magic or special #defines?
What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
baggage?
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library. Such a library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning
CStrings and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I
am sorry, but the jury is still out.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
>
> As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> I guess.
>
> They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> to Templates in C++.
>
> As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance
> scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
>
> Check this out:
> http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
>
> In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
>
> -c
>
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing any > web
> > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think > that C++
> > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
> > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
> runtime/JIT
> > is
> > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > >
> > > --
> > > --Grant
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > > rights.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword.
Is > there an
> > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> auto-inlining?
> > I
> > > am
> > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or
rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already
on a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and older MFC
based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs. Perhaps that
DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good luck.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
a wrapper.
That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
Abstract classes and methods
> and multiple derivation
Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
Let's turn the tables...
What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
in C++?
What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
the runtime and compiler?
What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
fancy magic or special #defines?
What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
baggage?
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
Such a
> library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning
CStrings
> and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
would be
> the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I
am
> sorry, but the jury is still out.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> >
> > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > I guess.
> >
> > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > to Templates in C++.
> >
> > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance
> > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
> >
> > Check this out:
> > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> >
> > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> >
> > -c
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing any
> > web
> > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think > > that C++
> > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
> > runtime/JIT
> > > is
> > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --Grant
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword.
Is > > there an
> > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > auto-inlining?
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
A small MEC++ assembly could wrap this for you. It might be
possible to consume MFC classes from C#, I'm not sure, I haven't
had much experience in that realm.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is
already on a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and older
MFC based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs. Perhaps
that DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good luck.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
a wrapper.
That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
Abstract classes and methods
> and multiple derivation
Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
Let's turn the tables...
What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
in C++?
What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
the runtime and compiler?
What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
fancy magic or special #defines?
What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
baggage?
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
Such a
> library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning CStrings
> and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.)
What would be
> the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I am
> sorry, but the jury is still out.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember,
..NET > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> >
> > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > I guess.
> >
> > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > to Templates in C++.
> >
> > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
> >
> > Check this out:
> > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> >
> > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> >
> > -c
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing any
> > web
> > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think > > that C++
> > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the
..NET > > runtime/JIT
> > > is
> > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --Grant
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. Is > > there an
> > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > auto-inlining?
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or
rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is
already on a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and
older MFC based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps that DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control
or knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good
luck. ----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
>
> That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
> Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
> a wrapper.
>
> That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
>
> > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
>
> Abstract classes and methods
>
> > and multiple derivation
>
> Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
> not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
> debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
> they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
>
> Let's turn the tables...
>
> What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
> in C++?
>
> What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
> nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> the runtime and compiler?
>
> What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> fancy magic or special #defines?
>
> What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> baggage?
>
> -c
>
>
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library. Such
> a
> > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > CStrings
> > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.)
What > would be
> > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I > am
> > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember,
..NET > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > >
> > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all
the > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his
own, > > > I guess.
> > >
> > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > > to Templates in C++.
> > >
> > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++
code. > > >
> > > Check this out:
> > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > >
> > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate doing
> any
> > > web
> > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that
I think
> > > that C++
> > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote
in > message
> > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the
..NET > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > is
> > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --Grant
> > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> no
> > > > rights.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. Is
> > > there an
> > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions
for > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Real answers. Finally.
BTW: The scenario that I mentioned was hypothetical. I have been
programming many years to know that I always have to keep my options open.
In general, if that DLL was going to be out there anyway, and reproducing it
in C# would take too long, the DLL would be used. If that made C++ more
convenient, tough luck to those who favor C#. By the time a wrapper DLL
(based on what I think would be involved in wrapping the MFC classes and MFC
style classes in COM interfaces) could be written, some projects that I have
seen could probably be written in from scratch in C++.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Will,
Most of the 3d edges and/or rectangles functions are in the
System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint class.
I would recommend considering creating a Managed wrapper for your MFC
legacy DLL. Something along the lines of:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...extensions.asp
Hope this helps
Jay
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or
rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already on a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and older MFC based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs. Perhaps that DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good luck.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
>
> :)
>
> -c
>
>
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> >
> > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
> > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
> > a wrapper.
> >
> > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> >
> > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> >
> > Abstract classes and methods
> >
> > > and multiple derivation
> >
> > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
> > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
> > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
> > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> >
> > Let's turn the tables...
> >
> > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
> > in C++?
> >
> > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
> > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > the runtime and compiler?
> >
> > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > fancy magic or special #defines?
> >
> > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > baggage?
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
> Such
> > a
> > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > > CStrings
> > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.)
What > > would be
> > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I > > am
> > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember,
..NET > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > >
> > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > > > I guess.
> > > >
> > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > >
> > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
> > > >
> > > > Check this out:
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
> doing
> > any
> > > > web
> > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
> think
> > > > that C++
> > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > is
> > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers
> > no
> > > > > rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. > Is
> > > > there an
> > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Why get DirectX or OpenGL in involved to just a bunch of button and other
control classes? Besides, DrawFrameControl uses the same Windows code that
Windows itself uses to draw caption bar buttons, radio buttons, scrollbars,
and more. (The control's WM_PAINT handler calls DrawFrameControl.) That
means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that look like
buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows version you
are on. You might have written a button class that displays graphics for
Windows 3.1 and it would look like a Windows 3.1 button until you ran the
program under Windows 9x. Then Windows would make your button look like a
Windows 9x button. If you later provided a manifest, you could skin your
button -- with no code. All you would ever paint is the graphic. That is
what you use DrawFrameControl for. Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you draw the
drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas. DrawEdge (MFC and GDI)
is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or raised)
line, or a diagonal 3d line. I think that Jay Harlow provided what I was
looking for. DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer providing a
slight tap.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IF*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or
rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already on a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and
older MFC based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs. Perhaps that DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good luck. ----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
>
> :)
>
> -c
>
>
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> >
> > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
> > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
> > a wrapper.
> >
> > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> >
> > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> >
> > Abstract classes and methods
> >
> > > and multiple derivation
> >
> > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
> > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
> > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
> > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> >
> > Let's turn the tables...
> >
> > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
> > in C++?
> >
> > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
> > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > the runtime and compiler?
> >
> > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > fancy magic or special #defines?
> >
> > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > baggage?
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library. > Such
> > a
> > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning > > CStrings
> > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What > > would be
> > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I > > am
> > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > >
> > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own, > > > > I guess.
> > > >
> > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > >
> > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code. > > > >
> > > > Check this out:
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate > doing
> > any
> > > > web
> > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I > think
> > > > that C++
> > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated). > > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in > > message
> > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > is
> > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers
> > no
> > > > > rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. > Is
> > > > there an
> > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Choosing your entire application's framework based on the
usage of one legacy DLL seems rather hasty.
A wrapper DLL in MEC++ wouldn't be that difficult. In fact,
the .NET part is simple, it's the unmanaged side that would
be difficult.
And no, it's not wrapping MFC with COM, it'd be creating
a small .NET class in C++ w/Managed Extensions to allow you
to call into the MFC class. It's like a small bridge class,
nothing fancy.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eS**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Real answers. Finally.
BTW: The scenario that I mentioned was hypothetical. I have been
programming many years to know that I always have to keep my options
open. In general, if that DLL was going to be out there anyway, and
reproducing it in C# would take too long, the DLL would be used. If that made C++
more convenient, tough luck to those who favor C#. By the time a wrapper
DLL (based on what I think would be involved in wrapping the MFC classes
and MFC style classes in COM interfaces) could be written, some projects that
I have seen could probably be written in from scratch in C++.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote in
message news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Will,
Most of the 3d edges and/or rectangles functions are in the
System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint class.
I would recommend considering creating a Managed wrapper for your
MFC legacy DLL. Something along the lines of:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...extensions.asp
Hope this helps
Jay
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges
and/or rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that
is already on
> a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and
older MFC > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps that > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no
control or > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good
luck. > ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the
concept...!! > >
> > :)
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > >
> > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be
done. > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to
make > > > a wrapper.
> > >
> > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > >
> > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > >
> > > Abstract classes and methods
> > >
> > > > and multiple derivation
> > >
> > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious
decision > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very
long > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's
because > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > >
> > > Let's turn the tables...
> > >
> > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory
management > > > in C++?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library
with > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > the runtime and compiler?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > baggage?
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library. > > Such
> > > a
> > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > > > CStrings
> > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style
class.) What > > > would be
> > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I > > > am
> > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#.
Remember, .NET > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has
all the > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each
his own, > > > > > I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are
similar > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET,
you'll > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++
code. > > > > >
> > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > >
> > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most
impact. > > > > >
> > > > > -c
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate > > doing
> > > any
> > > > > web
> > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things
that I > > think
> > > > > that C++
> > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in > > > message
> > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However,
the .NET > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and > > confers
> > > no
> > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote
in message > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. > > Is
> > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select
functions for > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
You can call all but a handful of Win32 APIs from .NET.
So if you can do it through GDI, then you can do it in Win32.
A lot of the GDI is implemented in the .NET Framework already.
I'm not familiar with your specific case, but it's probably
doable in .NET, though I'm not sure why'd you'd be doing such
things. It seems C++ developers like to break from the norm
and rewrite the entire UI and you end up with horrible UIs
that are inconsistent with the rest of the OS. The .NET
framework provides dozens of controls that are all XP-themeable.
You'd have a hard time finding a reason where those aren't
good enough (well, fancier DataGrids are pretty handy, but
as far as basic controls like textboxes, etc).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:up*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Why get DirectX or OpenGL in involved to just a bunch of button and
other control classes? Besides, DrawFrameControl uses the same Windows code
that Windows itself uses to draw caption bar buttons, radio buttons,
scrollbars, and more. (The control's WM_PAINT handler calls DrawFrameControl.)
That means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that look
like buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows
version you are on. You might have written a button class that displays graphics
for Windows 3.1 and it would look like a Windows 3.1 button until you ran
the program under Windows 9x. Then Windows would make your button look
like a Windows 9x button. If you later provided a manifest, you could skin
your button -- with no code. All you would ever paint is the graphic.
That is what you use DrawFrameControl for. Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you
draw the drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas. DrawEdge (MFC
and GDI) is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or
raised) line, or a diagonal 3d line. I think that Jay Harlow provided what I
was looking for. DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer
providing a slight tap.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IF*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges
and/or rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that
is already on
> a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and
older MFC > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps that > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no
control or > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good
luck. > ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the
concept...!! > >
> > :)
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > >
> > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be
done. > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to
make > > > a wrapper.
> > >
> > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > >
> > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > >
> > > Abstract classes and methods
> > >
> > > > and multiple derivation
> > >
> > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious
decision > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very
long > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's
because > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > >
> > > Let's turn the tables...
> > >
> > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory
management > > > in C++?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library
with > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > the runtime and compiler?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > baggage?
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library. > > Such
> > > a
> > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > > > CStrings
> > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style
class.) What > > > would be
> > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I > > > am
> > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#.
Remember, .NET > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has
all the > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each
his own, > > > > > I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are
similar > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET,
you'll > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++
code. > > > > >
> > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > >
> > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most
impact. > > > > >
> > > > > -c
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate > > doing
> > > any
> > > > > web
> > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things
that I > > think
> > > > > that C++
> > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in > > > message
> > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However,
the .NET > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and > > confers
> > > no
> > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote
in message > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. > > Is
> > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select
functions for > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> So if you can do it through GDI, then you can do it in Win32.
I mean "then you can do it in .NET", sorry.
-Chad
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aS*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... You can call all but a handful of Win32 APIs from .NET.
So if you can do it through GDI, then you can do it in Win32.
A lot of the GDI is implemented in the .NET Framework already.
I'm not familiar with your specific case, but it's probably
doable in .NET, though I'm not sure why'd you'd be doing such
things. It seems C++ developers like to break from the norm
and rewrite the entire UI and you end up with horrible UIs
that are inconsistent with the rest of the OS. The .NET
framework provides dozens of controls that are all XP-themeable.
You'd have a hard time finding a reason where those aren't
good enough (well, fancier DataGrids are pretty handy, but
as far as basic controls like textboxes, etc).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:up*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Why get DirectX or OpenGL in involved to just a bunch of button and other control classes? Besides, DrawFrameControl uses the same Windows
code that Windows itself uses to draw caption bar buttons, radio buttons, scrollbars, and more. (The control's WM_PAINT handler calls DrawFrameControl.)
That means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that
look like buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows version you are on. You might have written a button class that displays
graphics for Windows 3.1 and it would look like a Windows 3.1 button until you
ran the program under Windows 9x. Then Windows would make your button look like a Windows 9x button. If you later provided a manifest, you could skin
your button -- with no code. All you would ever paint is the graphic.
That is what you use DrawFrameControl for. Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you
draw the drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas. DrawEdge (MFC
and GDI) is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or
raised) line, or a diagonal 3d line. I think that Jay Harlow provided what
I was looking for. DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer providing a slight tap.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IF*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges
and/or > rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already
> on
> > a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger
and older MFC
> > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps that
> > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
> > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times.
Good luck.
> > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to
use > > > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!! > > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > > >
> > > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done. > > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++
to make > > > > a wrapper.
> > > >
> > > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you
can't > > > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > > >
> > > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > > >
> > > > Abstract classes and methods
> > > >
> > > > > and multiple derivation
> > > >
> > > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious
decision > > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long > > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because > > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Let's turn the tables...
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management > > > > in C++?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with > > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > > the runtime and compiler?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without
any > > > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > > baggage?
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library.
> > > Such
> > > > a
> > > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning
> > > > CStrings
> > > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
> > > > would be
> > > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I
> > > > am
> > > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > > > > > I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar > > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll > > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance
> > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged
C/C++ code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster
than > > > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine
> > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact. > > > > > >
> > > > > > -c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message
> > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate
> > > doing
> > > > any
> > > > > > web
> > > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some
things that I
> > > think
> > > > > > that C++
> > > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated).
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions.
However, the .NET
> > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and > > > confers
> > > > no
> > > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net>
wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword.
> > > Is
> > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible. > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Here is another hypothetical scenario for you, also based on real world
experience:
You are working on a computer program that will fly airplanes. One program,
running on just one computer (with perhaps backups that do nothing unless
there is a major problem) displays a map of where you are and routes
commands from the controls to the flight system. (The stick and rudder
pedal are just computer controls, like on many modern aircraft.) You have
to update the screen quickly so the pilot knows where he or she is.
However, you do not want to spend any serious amount of time (as measured in
a percentage of CPU cycles used) painting the screen. If you spend too much
time painting, the airplane could be headed towards a big mountain, but
never responds to the pilot's attempt to turn it away from that mountain
because it is too busy updating the screen. If you are a passenger on that
plane, what do you want updating the screen: Windows GDI, MFC, C# and
Graphics, OpenGL, or DirectX? If a fancy look were important, you might
vote for DirectX or OpenGL. But with lives on the line, you very quickly
consider fancy graphics to be extra baggage. At that point, I vote for the
Windows GDI. Now if .NET implements its stuff at a lower level than I have
the impression that it does, perhaps it would work. Not otherwise.
Now in a real airplane, there would be many computers to drive just the
displays. The controls would be on a second set of systems. Still, we ran
into that problem where the software runs boats. We were not talking about
something that sold for hundreds of million of dollars. Customers spent
only a small fraction of their money on the computers and software. A
luxurious interior is typically more important. You get one computer, and
you are lucky if it is a top of the line laptop. Most of the marine worthy
laptops are slow even new even compared to just other laptops.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
a wrapper.
That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
Abstract classes and methods
and multiple derivation
Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
Let's turn the tables...
What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
in C++?
What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
the runtime and compiler?
What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
fancy magic or special #defines?
What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
baggage?
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library. Such a library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning
CStrings and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I
am sorry, but the jury is still out.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
>
> As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> I guess.
>
> They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> to Templates in C++.
>
> As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance
> scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
>
> Check this out:
> http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
>
> In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
>
> -c
>
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing any > web
> > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think > that C++
> > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
> > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
> runtime/JIT
> > is
> > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > >
> > > --
> > > --Grant
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > > rights.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword.
Is > there an
> > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> auto-inlining?
> > I
> > > am
> > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
If your C# code is called on to draw something by older C-style code, that
C-style code is probably going to pass HBRUSHs and HWNDs rather than the
C#/.NET equivalents. (You might be reimplementing a DLL that an older C
program relied on. You are keeping the older program.)
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aS*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... You can call all but a handful of Win32 APIs from .NET.
So if you can do it through GDI, then you can do it in Win32.
A lot of the GDI is implemented in the .NET Framework already.
I'm not familiar with your specific case, but it's probably
doable in .NET, though I'm not sure why'd you'd be doing such
things. It seems C++ developers like to break from the norm
and rewrite the entire UI and you end up with horrible UIs
that are inconsistent with the rest of the OS. The .NET
framework provides dozens of controls that are all XP-themeable.
You'd have a hard time finding a reason where those aren't
good enough (well, fancier DataGrids are pretty handy, but
as far as basic controls like textboxes, etc).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:up*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Why get DirectX or OpenGL in involved to just a bunch of button and
other control classes? Besides, DrawFrameControl uses the same Windows code
that Windows itself uses to draw caption bar buttons, radio buttons,
scrollbars, and more. (The control's WM_PAINT handler calls DrawFrameControl.)
That means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that look
like buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows
version you are on. You might have written a button class that displays graphics
for Windows 3.1 and it would look like a Windows 3.1 button until you ran
the program under Windows 9x. Then Windows would make your button look
like a Windows 9x button. If you later provided a manifest, you could skin
your button -- with no code. All you would ever paint is the graphic.
That is what you use DrawFrameControl for. Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you
draw the drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas. DrawEdge (MFC
and GDI) is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or
raised) line, or a diagonal 3d line. I think that Jay Harlow provided what I
was looking for. DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer
providing a slight tap.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IF*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or > rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already
> on
> > a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and
older MFC
> > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps that
> > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
> > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good
luck.
> > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> > > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!! > > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > > >
> > > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done. > > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make > > > > a wrapper.
> > > >
> > > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > > >
> > > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > > >
> > > > Abstract classes and methods
> > > >
> > > > > and multiple derivation
> > > >
> > > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision > > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long > > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because > > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Let's turn the tables...
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management > > > > in C++?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with > > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > > the runtime and compiler?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > > baggage?
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library.
> > > Such
> > > > a
> > > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning
> > > > CStrings
> > > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
> > > > would be
> > > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I
> > > > am
> > > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > > > > > I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar > > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll > > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance
> > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++
code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine
> > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact. > > > > > >
> > > > > > -c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message
> > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate
> > > doing
> > > > any
> > > > > > web
> > > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
> > > think
> > > > > > that C++
> > > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated).
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
> > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and > > > confers
> > > > no
> > > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword.
> > > Is
> > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible. > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
..NET has a rich GDI implementation, so use GDI. However, I'd say
that GDI is slow and if you really wanted fast 2D rendering,
then using DirectDraw would be preferable. DirectDraw is very
simple and horribly fast. Even on crappy video cards, DD would
be faster than GDI.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Here is another hypothetical scenario for you, also based on real
world experience:
You are working on a computer program that will fly airplanes. One
program, running on just one computer (with perhaps backups that do nothing
unless there is a major problem) displays a map of where you are and routes
commands from the controls to the flight system. (The stick and
rudder pedal are just computer controls, like on many modern aircraft.) You
have to update the screen quickly so the pilot knows where he or she is.
However, you do not want to spend any serious amount of time (as
measured in a percentage of CPU cycles used) painting the screen. If you spend
too much time painting, the airplane could be headed towards a big mountain,
but never responds to the pilot's attempt to turn it away from that
mountain because it is too busy updating the screen. If you are a passenger on
that plane, what do you want updating the screen: Windows GDI, MFC, C# and
Graphics, OpenGL, or DirectX? If a fancy look were important, you
might vote for DirectX or OpenGL. But with lives on the line, you very
quickly consider fancy graphics to be extra baggage. At that point, I vote
for the Windows GDI. Now if .NET implements its stuff at a lower level than I
have the impression that it does, perhaps it would work. Not otherwise.
Now in a real airplane, there would be many computers to drive just
the displays. The controls would be on a second set of systems. Still,
we ran into that problem where the software runs boats. We were not talking
about something that sold for hundreds of million of dollars. Customers
spent only a small fraction of their money on the computers and software. A
luxurious interior is typically more important. You get one computer,
and you are lucky if it is a top of the line laptop. Most of the marine
worthy laptops are slow even new even compared to just other laptops.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
a wrapper.
That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
Abstract classes and methods
> and multiple derivation
Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
Let's turn the tables...
What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
in C++?
What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
the runtime and compiler?
What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
fancy magic or special #defines?
What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
baggage?
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
Such a
> library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning CStrings
> and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.)
What would be
> the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I am
> sorry, but the jury is still out.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember,
..NET > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> >
> > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > I guess.
> >
> > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > to Templates in C++.
> >
> > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
> >
> > Check this out:
> > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> >
> > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> >
> > -c
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing any
> > web
> > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think > > that C++
> > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the
..NET > > runtime/JIT
> > > is
> > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --Grant
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. Is > > there an
> > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > auto-inlining?
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
I was told earlier that the Win32 functions for exiting Windows and checking
or changing process rights were not available through .NET. Are you going
to tell me something different?
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aS*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... You can call all but a handful of Win32 APIs from .NET.
So if you can do it through GDI, then you can do it in Win32.
A lot of the GDI is implemented in the .NET Framework already.
I'm not familiar with your specific case, but it's probably
doable in .NET, though I'm not sure why'd you'd be doing such
things. It seems C++ developers like to break from the norm
and rewrite the entire UI and you end up with horrible UIs
that are inconsistent with the rest of the OS. The .NET
framework provides dozens of controls that are all XP-themeable.
You'd have a hard time finding a reason where those aren't
good enough (well, fancier DataGrids are pretty handy, but
as far as basic controls like textboxes, etc).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:up*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Why get DirectX or OpenGL in involved to just a bunch of button and
other control classes? Besides, DrawFrameControl uses the same Windows code
that Windows itself uses to draw caption bar buttons, radio buttons,
scrollbars, and more. (The control's WM_PAINT handler calls DrawFrameControl.)
That means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that look
like buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows
version you are on. You might have written a button class that displays graphics
for Windows 3.1 and it would look like a Windows 3.1 button until you ran
the program under Windows 9x. Then Windows would make your button look
like a Windows 9x button. If you later provided a manifest, you could skin
your button -- with no code. All you would ever paint is the graphic.
That is what you use DrawFrameControl for. Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you
draw the drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas. DrawEdge (MFC
and GDI) is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or
raised) line, or a diagonal 3d line. I think that Jay Harlow provided what I
was looking for. DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer
providing a slight tap.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IF*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or > rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already
> on
> > a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and
older MFC
> > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps that
> > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
> > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good
luck.
> > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> > > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!! > > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > > >
> > > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done. > > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make > > > > a wrapper.
> > > >
> > > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > > >
> > > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > > >
> > > > Abstract classes and methods
> > > >
> > > > > and multiple derivation
> > > >
> > > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision > > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long > > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because > > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Let's turn the tables...
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management > > > > in C++?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with > > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > > the runtime and compiler?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > > baggage?
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library.
> > > Such
> > > > a
> > > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning
> > > > CStrings
> > > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
> > > > would be
> > > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I
> > > > am
> > > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > > > > > I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar > > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll > > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance
> > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++
code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine
> > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact. > > > > > >
> > > > > > -c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message
> > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate
> > > doing
> > > > any
> > > > > > web
> > > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
> > > think
> > > > > > that C++
> > > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated).
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
> > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and > > > confers
> > > > no
> > > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword.
> > > Is
> > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible. > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:up*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... That
means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that look
like buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows version
you are on.
Not in xp
All you would ever paint is the graphic. That is
what you use DrawFrameControl for.
That is not correct, you have to use uxtheme-drawing for xp
Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you draw the
drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas.
DrawEdge (MFC and GDI)
is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or raised)
line, or a diagonal 3d line.
dotnet uses GDI+, that's the reason those methods exists in the WindowsForms
namespace and not in Drawing.
DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer providing a
slight tap.
i agree that are not yet ready for normal apps, but seems that is changing
The .NET GDI implementation is a medium-thickness wrapper around
the direct Win32 GDI calls. You can take in HBITMAPS, HWNDs,
HDCs, etc. You can create brushes, but I can't see where you can
create a .NET brush from an HBRUSH handle. I'm not a GDI expert,
so please forgive me, I'm probbly
Again, C# is just a language, we're really talking about .NET here,
..NET has all the functionality, C# is just a language.
If you so liked, you could write mostly equivalent code in VB.NET,
COBOL.NET, Python.NET, J#, etc.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... If your C# code is called on to draw something by older C-style code,
that C-style code is probably going to pass HBRUSHs and HWNDs rather than
the C#/.NET equivalents. (You might be reimplementing a DLL that an older
C program relied on. You are keeping the older program.)
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aS*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... You can call all but a handful of Win32 APIs from .NET.
So if you can do it through GDI, then you can do it in Win32.
A lot of the GDI is implemented in the .NET Framework already.
I'm not familiar with your specific case, but it's probably
doable in .NET, though I'm not sure why'd you'd be doing such
things. It seems C++ developers like to break from the norm
and rewrite the entire UI and you end up with horrible UIs
that are inconsistent with the rest of the OS. The .NET
framework provides dozens of controls that are all XP-themeable.
You'd have a hard time finding a reason where those aren't
good enough (well, fancier DataGrids are pretty handy, but
as far as basic controls like textboxes, etc).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:up*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Why get DirectX or OpenGL in involved to just a bunch of button
and other control classes? Besides, DrawFrameControl uses the same Windows
code that Windows itself uses to draw caption bar buttons, radio buttons,
scrollbars, and more. (The control's WM_PAINT handler calls
DrawFrameControl.) That means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that
look like buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows
version you are on. You might have written a button class that displays
graphics for Windows 3.1 and it would look like a Windows 3.1 button until you
ran the program under Windows 9x. Then Windows would make your button
look like a Windows 9x button. If you later provided a manifest, you could
skin your button -- with no code. All you would ever paint is the graphic.
That is what you use DrawFrameControl for. Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you
draw the drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas. DrawEdge
(MFC and GDI) is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or
raised) line, or a diagonal 3d line. I think that Jay Harlow provided
what I was looking for. DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer
providing a slight tap.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IF*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
>
> What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
>
> Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
> C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
> anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
>
> -c
>
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D
edges and/or > > rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see
none. > > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL
that is > already
> > on
> > > a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger
and > older MFC
> > > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
> Perhaps that
> > > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no
control > or
> > > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times.
Good > luck.
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to
use > > > > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the
concept...!! > > > >
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > > > >
> > > > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be
done. > > > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++
to make > > > > > a wrapper.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you
can't > > > > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > > > >
> > > > > Abstract classes and methods
> > > > >
> > > > > > and multiple derivation
> > > > >
> > > > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious
decision > > > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a
very long > > > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's
because > > > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do
it. > > > > >
> > > > > Let's turn the tables...
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory
management > > > > > in C++?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework
library with > > > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported
by > > > > > the runtime and compiler?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without
any > > > > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > > > baggage?
> > > > >
> > > > > -c
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
> library.
> > > > Such
> > > > > a
> > > > > > library might have functions taking as parameters
and/or > returning
> > > > > CStrings
> > > > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style
class.) > What
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
> derivation? I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#.
Remember, > .NET
> > > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like
has all > the
> > > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To
each his > own,
> > > > > > > I guess.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are
similar > > > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET,
you'll > > > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
> ultra-performance
> > > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged
C/C++ > code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster
than > > > > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
> determine
> > > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most
impact. > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote
in > message
> > > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
> anticipate
> > > > doing
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > web
> > > > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some
things that > I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > that C++
> > > > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
> castrated).
> > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]"
<gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote > in
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions.
However, the > .NET
> > > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and > > > > confers
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net>
wrote in > message
> > > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a
inline > keyword.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select
functions > for
> > > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. > > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Note that I said all but a handful. Unfortunately I don't
know the entire Win32 API and how they all relate to .NET,
but I wouldn't be suprised if a handful didn't work in .NET.
As far as process rights, like activating a token privilege,
I know that most of those work. I'm not sure about your specific
case.
As far as exit windows for reboot, I'm pretty sure that works,
but again, there are various parameters to ExitWindows and
ExitWindowsEx, and some of those might not be possible in .NET,
but I could be wrong.
Most of the Win32 API works, the problem is various Functions
take or return complicated structures that have variable
sized memory patterns which can be complicated, or, in some
cases, impossible to do with .NET's managed memory space.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uh*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... I was told earlier that the Win32 functions for exiting Windows and
checking or changing process rights were not available through .NET. Are you
going to tell me something different?
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aS*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... You can call all but a handful of Win32 APIs from .NET.
So if you can do it through GDI, then you can do it in Win32.
A lot of the GDI is implemented in the .NET Framework already.
I'm not familiar with your specific case, but it's probably
doable in .NET, though I'm not sure why'd you'd be doing such
things. It seems C++ developers like to break from the norm
and rewrite the entire UI and you end up with horrible UIs
that are inconsistent with the rest of the OS. The .NET
framework provides dozens of controls that are all XP-themeable.
You'd have a hard time finding a reason where those aren't
good enough (well, fancier DataGrids are pretty handy, but
as far as basic controls like textboxes, etc).
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:up*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Why get DirectX or OpenGL in involved to just a bunch of button
and other control classes? Besides, DrawFrameControl uses the same Windows
code that Windows itself uses to draw caption bar buttons, radio buttons,
scrollbars, and more. (The control's WM_PAINT handler calls
DrawFrameControl.) That means that if your control uses DrawFrameControl for objects that
look like buttons, they will look like buttons regardless of which Windows
version you are on. You might have written a button class that displays
graphics for Windows 3.1 and it would look like a Windows 3.1 button until you
ran the program under Windows 9x. Then Windows would make your button
look like a Windows 9x button. If you later provided a manifest, you could
skin your button -- with no code. All you would ever paint is the graphic.
That is what you use DrawFrameControl for. Draw3dRect (MFC only) lets you
draw the drop border you need for custom edit box-like areas. DrawEdge
(MFC and GDI) is what you would use if you wanted a group box style etched (or
raised) line, or a diagonal 3d line. I think that Jay Harlow provided
what I was looking for. DirectX and OpenGL sound like the sledge hammer
providing a slight tap.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IF*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> Managed DirectX 9. Anything you could possibly want.
>
> What is CDC? Why would you want to use that over DX anyhow?
>
> Also, there's an OpenGL implementation for .NET (written in
> C#, remember, C# is just a language, it doens't really provide
> anything, .NET provides all the functionality).
>
> -c
>
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D
edges and/or > > rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see
none. > > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL
that is > already
> > on
> > > a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger
and > older MFC
> > > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
> Perhaps that
> > > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no
control > or
> > > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times.
Good > luck.
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to
use > > > > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the
concept...!! > > > >
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > > > >
> > > > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be
done. > > > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++
to make > > > > > a wrapper.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you
can't > > > > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > > > >
> > > > > Abstract classes and methods
> > > > >
> > > > > > and multiple derivation
> > > > >
> > > > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious
decision > > > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a
very long > > > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's
because > > > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do
it. > > > > >
> > > > > Let's turn the tables...
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory
management > > > > > in C++?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework
library with > > > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported
by > > > > > the runtime and compiler?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without
any > > > > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > > > baggage?
> > > > >
> > > > > -c
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
> library.
> > > > Such
> > > > > a
> > > > > > library might have functions taking as parameters
and/or > returning
> > > > > CStrings
> > > > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style
class.) > What
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
> derivation? I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#.
Remember, > .NET
> > > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like
has all > the
> > > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To
each his > own,
> > > > > > > I guess.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are
similar > > > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET,
you'll > > > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
> ultra-performance
> > > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged
C/C++ > code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster
than > > > > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
> determine
> > > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most
impact. > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote
in > message
> > > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
> anticipate
> > > > doing
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > web
> > > > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some
things that > I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > that C++
> > > > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
> castrated).
> > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]"
<gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote > in
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions.
However, the > .NET
> > > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and > > > > confers
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net>
wrote in > message
> > > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a
inline > keyword.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select
functions > for
> > > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. > > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
So if I am calling System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint.DrawButton, what would
be the ButtonState value that would correspond to DFCS_HOT when calling
DrawFrameControl?
--
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Will,
Most of the 3d edges and/or rectangles functions are in the
System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint class.
I would recommend considering creating a Managed wrapper for your MFC
legacy DLL. Something along the lines of:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...extensions.asp
Hope this helps
Jay
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or
rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already on a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and older MFC based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs. Perhaps that DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or
knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good luck.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
>
> :)
>
> -c
>
>
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> >
> > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
> > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
> > a wrapper.
> >
> > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> >
> > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> >
> > Abstract classes and methods
> >
> > > and multiple derivation
> >
> > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
> > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
> > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
> > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> >
> > Let's turn the tables...
> >
> > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
> > in C++?
> >
> > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
> > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > the runtime and compiler?
> >
> > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > fancy magic or special #defines?
> >
> > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > baggage?
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
> Such
> > a
> > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > > CStrings
> > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.)
What > > would be
> > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I > > am
> > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember,
..NET > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > >
> > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > > > I guess.
> > > >
> > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > >
> > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
> > > >
> > > > Check this out:
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
> doing
> > any
> > > > web
> > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
> think
> > > > that C++
> > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > is
> > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers
> > no
> > > > > rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. > Is
> > > > there an
> > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
There is none in the Framework.
You'd have to call DrawFrameControl manually.
The .NET Framework does not encompass the entire Win32 API,
which is why you have to call the methods sometime. If you
wish to use that as an excuse to forgo all the other great
features .NET has for that one function, that's great for
you, I guess.
public struct RECT
{
int left;
int top;
int right;
int bottom;
}
[DllImport("gdi32.dll")]
private static extern DrawFrameControl(
IntPtr hdc,
ref RECT lprc,
uint uType,
uint uState
)
public const DFC_BUTTON = 0x4;
public const DFCS_HOT = 0x1000;
....
RECT r = new RECT()
r.left = 5;
r.top = 5;
r.right = 20;
r.bottom = 10;
DrawFrameControl( button1.Handle, ref r, DFC_BUTTON, DFCS_HOT );
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... So if I am calling System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint.DrawButton, what
would be the ButtonState value that would correspond to DFCS_HOT when
calling DrawFrameControl?
--
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote in
message news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Will,
Most of the 3d edges and/or rectangles functions are in the
System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint class.
I would recommend considering creating a Managed wrapper for your
MFC legacy DLL. Something along the lines of:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...extensions.asp
Hope this helps
Jay
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges
and/or rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that
is already on
> a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and
older MFC > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps that > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no
control or > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good
luck. > ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the
concept...!! > >
> > :)
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > >
> > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be
done. > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to
make > > > a wrapper.
> > >
> > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > >
> > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > >
> > > Abstract classes and methods
> > >
> > > > and multiple derivation
> > >
> > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious
decision > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very
long > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's
because > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > >
> > > Let's turn the tables...
> > >
> > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory
management > > > in C++?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library
with > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > the runtime and compiler?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > baggage?
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library. > > Such
> > > a
> > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > > > CStrings
> > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style
class.) What > > > would be
> > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I > > > am
> > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#.
Remember, .NET > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has
all the > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each
his own, > > > > > I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are
similar > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET,
you'll > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++
code. > > > > >
> > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > >
> > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most
impact. > > > > >
> > > > > -c
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate > > doing
> > > any
> > > > > web
> > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things
that I > > think
> > > > > that C++
> > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in > > > message
> > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However,
the .NET > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and > > confers
> > > no
> > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote
in message > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. > > Is
> > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select
functions for > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Actually, no. I would prefer to stay with the .NET as it is handier.
However, I can not find the appropriate stuff half of the time. In this
case, all Microsoft had to do was add the appropriate value to the
ButtonStyle enum. Problem solved. I say that as it sounds like
ControlPaint uses DrawFrameControl behind the scenes for many of its
methods. DrawButton probably evaluates to just a call to DrawFrameControl
with DFC_BUTTON added for you. (That parameter is not in the UI, but since
DrawButton draws only generic buttons, it can be assumed.) I expect the
ButtonStyle values to be defined to match the DFCS values in the SDK. Just
typecast the enum to an int and you are done. In fact, you could declare
you import of DrawFrameControl to do the type cast for you if the enum is
declared properly.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oc*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... There is none in the Framework.
You'd have to call DrawFrameControl manually.
The .NET Framework does not encompass the entire Win32 API,
which is why you have to call the methods sometime. If you
wish to use that as an excuse to forgo all the other great
features .NET has for that one function, that's great for
you, I guess.
public struct RECT
{
int left;
int top;
int right;
int bottom;
}
[DllImport("gdi32.dll")]
private static extern DrawFrameControl(
IntPtr hdc,
ref RECT lprc,
uint uType,
uint uState
)
public const DFC_BUTTON = 0x4;
public const DFCS_HOT = 0x1000;
...
RECT r = new RECT()
r.left = 5;
r.top = 5;
r.right = 20;
r.bottom = 10;
DrawFrameControl( button1.Handle, ref r, DFC_BUTTON, DFCS_HOT );
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... So if I am calling System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint.DrawButton, what
would be the ButtonState value that would correspond to DFCS_HOT when
calling DrawFrameControl?
--
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote in
message news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Will,
Most of the 3d edges and/or rectangles functions are in the
System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint class.
I would recommend considering creating a Managed wrapper for your MFC legacy DLL. Something along the lines of:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...extensions.asp
Hope this helps
Jay
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D edges and/or > rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see none.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL that is already
> on
> > a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger and older MFC
> > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs. Perhaps that
> > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no control or > > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times. Good luck. > > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> > > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!! > > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > > >
> > > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done. > > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make > > > > a wrapper.
> > > >
> > > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > > >
> > > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > > >
> > > > Abstract classes and methods
> > > >
> > > > > and multiple derivation
> > > >
> > > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision > > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long > > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because > > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Let's turn the tables...
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management > > > > in C++?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with > > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > > the runtime and compiler?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > > >
> > > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > > baggage?
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library. > > > Such
> > > > a
> > > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > > > > CStrings
> > > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What > > > > would be
> > > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I
> > > > am
> > > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET > > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has
all the > > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own, > > > > > > I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar > > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll > > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance
> > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code. > > > > > >
> > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine > > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact. > > > > > >
> > > > > > -c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate > > > doing
> > > > any
> > > > > > web
> > > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I > > > think
> > > > > > that C++
> > > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in > > > > message
> > > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
> > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and > > > confers
> > > > no
> > > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. > > > Is
> > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for > > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible. > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
I agree, it's curious they left that one out. There are several
cases like that, unfortunately.
The WinForms/GDI stuff was hastely put together, it seems
as there are at least one or two spots there you can allocate
a Graphics object from an HBITMAP and have no way to free it
except make a PInvoke call to gdi32.dll::Delete() or DeleteDC
or something like that.
My guess is that 2.0 will be much, much better at least
in that area.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:e6**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Actually, no. I would prefer to stay with the .NET as it is handier.
However, I can not find the appropriate stuff half of the time. In
this case, all Microsoft had to do was add the appropriate value to the
ButtonStyle enum. Problem solved. I say that as it sounds like
ControlPaint uses DrawFrameControl behind the scenes for many of its
methods. DrawButton probably evaluates to just a call to
DrawFrameControl with DFC_BUTTON added for you. (That parameter is not in the UI, but
since DrawButton draws only generic buttons, it can be assumed.) I expect
the ButtonStyle values to be defined to match the DFCS values in the SDK.
Just typecast the enum to an int and you are done. In fact, you could
declare you import of DrawFrameControl to do the type cast for you if the enum
is declared properly.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oc*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... There is none in the Framework.
You'd have to call DrawFrameControl manually.
The .NET Framework does not encompass the entire Win32 API,
which is why you have to call the methods sometime. If you
wish to use that as an excuse to forgo all the other great
features .NET has for that one function, that's great for
you, I guess.
public struct RECT
{
int left;
int top;
int right;
int bottom;
}
[DllImport("gdi32.dll")]
private static extern DrawFrameControl(
IntPtr hdc,
ref RECT lprc,
uint uType,
uint uState
)
public const DFC_BUTTON = 0x4;
public const DFCS_HOT = 0x1000;
...
RECT r = new RECT()
r.left = 5;
r.top = 5;
r.right = 20;
r.bottom = 10;
DrawFrameControl( button1.Handle, ref r, DFC_BUTTON, DFCS_HOT );
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... So if I am calling System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint.DrawButton,
what would be the ButtonState value that would correspond to DFCS_HOT when
calling DrawFrameControl?
--
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote
in message news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Will,
> Most of the 3d edges and/or rectangles functions are in the
> System.Windows.Forms.ControlPaint class.
>
> I would recommend considering creating a Managed wrapper for
your MFC legacy
> DLL. Something along the lines of:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...extensions.asp >
> Hope this helps
> Jay
>
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Almost forgot. CDC provides THREE members which draw 3D
edges and/or > > rectangles. How many does Graphics in C# provide? I see
none. > > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > The scenario that I had in mind was you have to use a DLL
that is > already
> > on
> > > a user's machine. You are required to coexist with a larger
and older > MFC
> > > based program. Most of what you need is in one of its DLLs.
Perhaps > that
> > > DLL has tools for accessing a file format that you have no
control or > > > knowledge of. I have had to put up with that many times.
Good luck. > > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to
use > > > > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the
concept...!! > > > >
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > > > >
> > > > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be
done. > > > > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++
to make > > > > > a wrapper.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you
can't > > > > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > > > >
> > > > > Abstract classes and methods
> > > > >
> > > > > > and multiple derivation
> > > > >
> > > > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious
decision > > > > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a
very long > > > > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's
because > > > > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do
it. > > > > >
> > > > > Let's turn the tables...
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory
management > > > > > in C++?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework
library with > > > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported
by > > > > > the runtime and compiler?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without
any > > > > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > > > baggage?
> > > > >
> > > > > -c
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library. > > > > Such
> > > > > a
> > > > > > library might have functions taking as parameters
and/or returning
> > > > > CStrings
> > > > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style
class.) What
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation?
> I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#.
Remember, .NET
> > > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like
has all the > > > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To
each his own, > > > > > > > I guess.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are
similar > > > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET,
you'll > > > > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
> ultra-performance
> > > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged
C/C++ code. > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster
than > > > > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine > > > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most
impact. > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote
in message > > > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate > > > > doing
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > web
> > > > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some
things that I > > > > think
> > > > > > > that C++
> > > > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated).
> > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]"
<gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions.
However, the > .NET
> > > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and > > > > confers
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net>
wrote in > message
> > > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a
inline keyword.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select
functions for > > > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. > > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
You could (and should) multithread the application so that it is possible to
deal with input at the same time as painting. You could even turn the
painting priority down in comparison to the input priority. This doesn't
make the painting faster, but it gets around your crash into the
mountain/other boat scenario.
Niall
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Here is another hypothetical scenario for you, also based on real world
experience:
You are working on a computer program that will fly airplanes. One
program, running on just one computer (with perhaps backups that do nothing unless
there is a major problem) displays a map of where you are and routes
commands from the controls to the flight system. (The stick and rudder
pedal are just computer controls, like on many modern aircraft.) You have
to update the screen quickly so the pilot knows where he or she is.
However, you do not want to spend any serious amount of time (as measured
in a percentage of CPU cycles used) painting the screen. If you spend too
much time painting, the airplane could be headed towards a big mountain, but
never responds to the pilot's attempt to turn it away from that mountain
because it is too busy updating the screen. If you are a passenger on
that plane, what do you want updating the screen: Windows GDI, MFC, C# and
Graphics, OpenGL, or DirectX? If a fancy look were important, you might
vote for DirectX or OpenGL. But with lives on the line, you very quickly
consider fancy graphics to be extra baggage. At that point, I vote for
the Windows GDI. Now if .NET implements its stuff at a lower level than I
have the impression that it does, perhaps it would work. Not otherwise.
Now in a real airplane, there would be many computers to drive just the
displays. The controls would be on a second set of systems. Still, we
ran into that problem where the software runs boats. We were not talking
about something that sold for hundreds of million of dollars. Customers spent
only a small fraction of their money on the computers and software. A
luxurious interior is typically more important. You get one computer, and
you are lucky if it is a top of the line laptop. Most of the marine
worthy laptops are slow even new even compared to just other laptops.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
a wrapper.
That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
Abstract classes and methods
> and multiple derivation
Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
Let's turn the tables...
What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
in C++?
What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
the runtime and compiler?
What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
fancy magic or special #defines?
What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
baggage?
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
Such a
> library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning
CStrings
> and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
would be
> the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I
am
> sorry, but the jury is still out.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> >
> > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > I guess.
> >
> > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > to Templates in C++.
> >
> > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance
> > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
> >
> > Check this out:
> > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> >
> > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> >
> > -c
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing any
> > web
> > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think > > that C++
> > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET
> > runtime/JIT
> > > is
> > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --Grant
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword.
Is > > there an
> > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > auto-inlining?
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Not really. The applications like that I worked on were multi-threaded. If
the drawing was too slow, the CPU was still unavailable because of Windows'
problems pre-empting threads. From what I understand, Unix and possibly
Linux would solve that problem, but the typically users of that kind of
application have no idea what the difference between a parallel cable and a
USB cable is. Do not even think of attempting to get them to understand
Unix. You would have a nightmare of a technical support problem.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Niall" <as**@me.com> wrote in message
news:ez**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... You could (and should) multithread the application so that it is possible
to deal with input at the same time as painting. You could even turn the
painting priority down in comparison to the input priority. This doesn't
make the painting faster, but it gets around your crash into the
mountain/other boat scenario.
Niall
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Here is another hypothetical scenario for you, also based on real world
experience:
You are working on a computer program that will fly airplanes. One program, running on just one computer (with perhaps backups that do nothing
unless there is a major problem) displays a map of where you are and routes
commands from the controls to the flight system. (The stick and rudder
pedal are just computer controls, like on many modern aircraft.) You
have to update the screen quickly so the pilot knows where he or she is.
However, you do not want to spend any serious amount of time (as
measured in a percentage of CPU cycles used) painting the screen. If you spend too
much time painting, the airplane could be headed towards a big mountain, but
never responds to the pilot's attempt to turn it away from that mountain
because it is too busy updating the screen. If you are a passenger on
that plane, what do you want updating the screen: Windows GDI, MFC, C# and
Graphics, OpenGL, or DirectX? If a fancy look were important, you might
vote for DirectX or OpenGL. But with lives on the line, you very
quickly consider fancy graphics to be extra baggage. At that point, I vote for
the Windows GDI. Now if .NET implements its stuff at a lower level than I
have the impression that it does, perhaps it would work. Not otherwise.
Now in a real airplane, there would be many computers to drive just the
displays. The controls would be on a second set of systems. Still, we
ran into that problem where the software runs boats. We were not talking
about something that sold for hundreds of million of dollars. Customers spent
only a small fraction of their money on the computers and software. A
luxurious interior is typically more important. You get one computer,
and you are lucky if it is a top of the line laptop. Most of the marine
worthy laptops are slow even new even compared to just other laptops.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
:)
-c
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
>
> That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
> Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make
> a wrapper.
>
> That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
>
> > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
>
> Abstract classes and methods
>
> > and multiple derivation
>
> Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
> not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
> debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
> they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
>
> Let's turn the tables...
>
> What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
> in C++?
>
> What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with
> nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> the runtime and compiler?
>
> What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> fancy magic or special #defines?
>
> What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> baggage?
>
> -c
>
>
> "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library.
Such
> a
> > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning
> CStrings
> > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What
> would be
> > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation?
I > am
> > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > ----------
> > Will Pittenger
> > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET
> > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > >
> > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the
> > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own,
> > > I guess.
> > >
> > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar
> > > to Templates in C++.
> > >
> > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code.
> > >
> > > Check this out:
> > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > >
> > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine
> > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate
doing
> any
> > > web
> > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I
think
> > > that C++
> > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated).
> > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the
..NET > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > is
> > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --Grant
> > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> no
> > > > rights.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword.
Is
> > > there an
> > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for
> > > auto-inlining?
> > > > I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible.
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
What problems pre-empting threads? I've seen some damn-near
real time apps run on Windows without any pre-empting problems.
With a finely tuned app that's aware of thread priorities and
quanta guidelines, you can get it to behave pretty well.
Such optimizations would be required on Unix as well.
As far as Linux... if you suggest Linux's threading/proc model
is better than Windows, perhaps you should read some more.
Keep in mind Windows == Windows NT/2K/XP/2K3.
Windows 9x is heretofore referred to as the Bastard Spawn of Hell.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eu**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Not really. The applications like that I worked on were
multi-threaded. If the drawing was too slow, the CPU was still unavailable because of
Windows' problems pre-empting threads. From what I understand, Unix and
possibly Linux would solve that problem, but the typically users of that kind
of application have no idea what the difference between a parallel cable
and a USB cable is. Do not even think of attempting to get them to
understand Unix. You would have a nightmare of a technical support problem.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Niall" <as**@me.com> wrote in message
news:ez**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... You could (and should) multithread the application so that it is
possible to deal with input at the same time as painting. You could even turn
the painting priority down in comparison to the input priority. This
doesn't make the painting faster, but it gets around your crash into the
mountain/other boat scenario.
Niall
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Here is another hypothetical scenario for you, also based on real
world experience:
You are working on a computer program that will fly airplanes.
One program, running on just one computer (with perhaps backups that do nothing unless there is a major problem) displays a map of where you are and
routes commands from the controls to the flight system. (The stick and
rudder pedal are just computer controls, like on many modern aircraft.)
You have to update the screen quickly so the pilot knows where he or she
is. However, you do not want to spend any serious amount of time (as measured in a percentage of CPU cycles used) painting the screen. If you
spend too much time painting, the airplane could be headed towards a big
mountain, but never responds to the pilot's attempt to turn it away from that
mountain because it is too busy updating the screen. If you are a
passenger on that plane, what do you want updating the screen: Windows GDI, MFC, C#
and Graphics, OpenGL, or DirectX? If a fancy look were important, you
might vote for DirectX or OpenGL. But with lives on the line, you very
quickly consider fancy graphics to be extra baggage. At that point, I
vote for the Windows GDI. Now if .NET implements its stuff at a lower level
than I have the impression that it does, perhaps it would work. Not
otherwise.
Now in a real airplane, there would be many computers to drive
just the displays. The controls would be on a second set of systems.
Still, we ran into that problem where the software runs boats. We were not
talking about something that sold for hundreds of million of dollars. Customers
spent only a small fraction of their money on the computers and
software. A luxurious interior is typically more important. You get one
computer, and you are lucky if it is a top of the line laptop. Most of the
marine worthy laptops are slow even new even compared to just other laptops.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
>
> :)
>
> -c
>
>
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> >
> > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
> > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to
make > > a wrapper.
> >
> > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> >
> > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> >
> > Abstract classes and methods
> >
> > > and multiple derivation
> >
> > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
> > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
> > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
> > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> >
> > Let's turn the tables...
> >
> > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
> > in C++?
> >
> > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library
with > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > the runtime and compiler?
> >
> > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > fancy magic or special #defines?
> >
> > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > baggage?
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension
library. > Such
> > a
> > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or
returning > > CStrings
> > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.)
What > > would be
> > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple
derivation? I > > am
> > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > ----------
> > > Will Pittenger
> > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember,
..NET > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > >
> > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all
the > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his
own, > > > > I guess.
> > > >
> > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are
similar > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > >
> > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived ultra-performance > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++
code. > > > >
> > > > Check this out:
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better
determine > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> > > >
> > > > -c
> > > >
> > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not
anticipate > doing
> > any
> > > > web
> > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things
that I > think
> > > > that C++
> > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be
castrated). > > > > > ----------
> > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in > > message
> > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However,
the .NET > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > is
> > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and > confers
> > no
> > > > > rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline
keyword. > Is
> > > > there an
> > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions
for > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are
possible. > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
A program whose drawing code is not efficient is not a "finely tuned app
that's aware of thread priorities and quanta guidelines" application. You
proved my point.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb ( www.qurb.com)
"Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cw*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ... What problems pre-empting threads? I've seen some damn-near
real time apps run on Windows without any pre-empting problems.
With a finely tuned app that's aware of thread priorities and
quanta guidelines, you can get it to behave pretty well.
Such optimizations would be required on Unix as well.
As far as Linux... if you suggest Linux's threading/proc model
is better than Windows, perhaps you should read some more.
Keep in mind Windows == Windows NT/2K/XP/2K3.
Windows 9x is heretofore referred to as the Bastard Spawn of Hell.
-c
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eu**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Not really. The applications like that I worked on were
multi-threaded. If the drawing was too slow, the CPU was still unavailable because of
Windows' problems pre-empting threads. From what I understand, Unix and
possibly Linux would solve that problem, but the typically users of that kind
of application have no idea what the difference between a parallel cable
and a USB cable is. Do not even think of attempting to get them to
understand Unix. You would have a nightmare of a technical support problem.
----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
"Niall" <as**@me.com> wrote in message
news:ez**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... You could (and should) multithread the application so that it is possible to deal with input at the same time as painting. You could even turn
the painting priority down in comparison to the input priority. This doesn't make the painting faster, but it gets around your crash into the
mountain/other boat scenario.
Niall
"Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Here is another hypothetical scenario for you, also based on real world > experience:
>
> You are working on a computer program that will fly airplanes. One program,
> running on just one computer (with perhaps backups that do nothing
unless > there is a major problem) displays a map of where you are and routes > commands from the controls to the flight system. (The stick and rudder > pedal are just computer controls, like on many modern aircraft.) You have > to update the screen quickly so the pilot knows where he or she
is. > However, you do not want to spend any serious amount of time (as
measured in
> a percentage of CPU cycles used) painting the screen. If you spend too much
> time painting, the airplane could be headed towards a big mountain, but > never responds to the pilot's attempt to turn it away from that mountain > because it is too busy updating the screen. If you are a passenger on that
> plane, what do you want updating the screen: Windows GDI, MFC, C# and > Graphics, OpenGL, or DirectX? If a fancy look were important, you might > vote for DirectX or OpenGL. But with lives on the line, you very
quickly > consider fancy graphics to be extra baggage. At that point, I vote for the
> Windows GDI. Now if .NET implements its stuff at a lower level than I have
> the impression that it does, perhaps it would work. Not otherwise. >
> Now in a real airplane, there would be many computers to drive just the > displays. The controls would be on a second set of systems. Still, we ran
> into that problem where the software runs boats. We were not talking about
> something that sold for hundreds of million of dollars. Customers spent > only a small fraction of their money on the computers and software. A > luxurious interior is typically more important. You get one computer, and > you are lucky if it is a top of the line laptop. Most of the
marine worthy
> laptops are slow even new even compared to just other laptops.
> ----------
> Will Pittenger
> E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:hh*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > Oh yeah, one other thing... why on EARTH would you want to use
> > MFC when you have .NET now? I can't even fathom the concept...!!
> >
> > :)
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Z8*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > >How should I call functions in a MFC extension library
> > >
> > > That's difficult, but if it's a COM interface, it can be done.
> > > Otherwise, you'll have to use Managed Extensions for C++ to make > > > a wrapper.
> > >
> > > That's not a fair criticism of C#, really, because you can't
> > > use .NET assemblies in C++ either.
> > >
> > > > What would be the equivalent of pure virtual functions
> > >
> > > Abstract classes and methods
> > >
> > > > and multiple derivation
> > >
> > > Multiple inheritence, you mean? There was a concious decision
> > > not to support MI in .NET because ... well, that's a very long
> > > debate, but it's not because they couldn't do it, it's because
> > > they didn't want to do it and felt it was wrong to do it.
> > >
> > > Let's turn the tables...
> > >
> > > What if I wanted didn't want to do any of my memory management
> > > in C++?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to have a comprehensive framework library with > > > nearly everything you could want built in and supported by
> > > the runtime and compiler?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted to make my code cross-platform without any
> > > fancy magic or special #defines?
> > >
> > > What if I wanted a pure OO language without any legacy
> > > baggage?
> > >
> > > -c
> > >
> > >
> > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Great. How should I call functions in a MFC extension library. > > Such
> > > a
> > > > library might have functions taking as parameters and/or returning > > > CStrings
> > > > and CWnds. (Or for that matter a generic C++ style class.) What > > > would be
> > > > the equivalent of pure virtual functions and multiple derivation? I > > > am
> > > > sorry, but the jury is still out.
> > > > ----------
> > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > "Chad Myers" <cm****@N0.SP.4M.austin.rr.com> wrote in
message > > > > news:AK*********************@twister.austin.rr.com ...
> > > > > JIT applies to all .NET assemblies, not just C#. Remember, .NET > > > > > is a system, C# is merely a language on top of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as C# being castrated, to me, it seems like has all the > > > > > good stuff and almost none of the bad of C++. To each his own, > > > > > I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > They're adding Generics in C# for .NET 2.0 which are similar > > > > > to Templates in C++.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as finding things C++ does better than .NET, you'll
> > > > > have a hard time. In all but the most contrived
ultra-performance > > > > > scenarios, .NET has many advantages over unmanaged C/C++ code. > > > > >
> > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3890 [MSDN article]
> > > > >
> > > > > In many cases, because IL is JIT'd, it runs faster than
> > > > > equivalent unmanaged code because the JIT can better determine > > > > > at run-time which optimizations will have the most impact.
> > > > >
> > > > > -c
> > > > >
> > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Would JIT apply to a local executable? I do not anticipate > > doing
> > > any
> > > > > web
> > > > > > stuff for a while. I am looking at doing some things that I > > think
> > > > > that C++
> > > > > > is better equipped for than C# (which seems to be castrated). > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > "Grant Richins [MS]" <gr*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in > > > message
> > > > > > news:O9***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > The C# compiler does not inline functions. However, the .NET > > > > > runtime/JIT
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > allowed to inline functions, and often does.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --Grant
> > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and > > confers
> > > no
> > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Will Pittenger" <wi************@verizon.net> wrote in
message > > > > > > > news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Does C# inline functions? I do not see a inline keyword. > > Is
> > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > implicit inline? Can the compiler select functions for > > > > > auto-inlining?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > more used to C++ where all these things are possible. > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > Will Pittenger
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: mailto:wi************@verizon.net
> > > > > > > > All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: A |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm having problems completing a project in C++. I have been using inline
functions in some of my header files. I have only done so for simple
functions that only have 1 statement (eg....
|
by: Chris Mantoulidis |
last post by:
I am not clear with the use of the keyword inline... I believe you add
it do a function when you implement the function inside the header
file where the class is stored...
But is that all? What...
|
by: Richard Hayden |
last post by:
Hi,
I have the following code:
/******************************** file1.c
#include <iostream>
extern void dummy();
inline int testfunc() {
|
by: Srini |
last post by:
Hello,
Rules for inline functions say that they have to be defined in the same
compilation unit as their declarations. For class member functions this
means that the inline member functions must...
|
by: Tony Johansson |
last post by:
Hello experts!
I'm reading a book about C++ and there is something about inline that the
book says that is unclear for me.
The book says the following "Because inline functions are expanded at...
|
by: Alvin |
last post by:
Hello all,
I'm curious as to your opinions on explicitly inlining function? I'm talking
about functions as members of a class. For example, so class A defines a
operator==() and a operator!=():...
|
by: Patrick Laurent |
last post by:
Hello
I have a program with many many inlined template functions
It is essential for the execution speed that every (or almost every)
function marked as inlined, becomes really inlined by the...
|
by: Method Man |
last post by:
If I don't care about the size of my executable or compile time, is there
any reason why I wouldn't want to inline every function in my code to make
the program run more efficient?
|
by: sam_cit |
last post by:
Hi Everyone,
I have few questions on inline functions, when i declare a function as
inline, is it for sure that the compiler would replace the function
call with the actual body of the function?...
|
by: aaragon |
last post by:
Hi everyone,
I would like to create a very simple function:
// header file
inline void point_map() {
PointMap pointMap = get(vertex_point_t(), g);
}
// main.cpp
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |
