Does c++ have an uniform class library?

[JTL]

I have learnt java before and now begin to learn c++

what puzzle me is that seem that different SDKs(c++builder , vs.net,
gcc..) has its own class library
we know that in java there are only one uniform class library
so that the codes I written in JBuilder can just copy to JCreator or
Eclipse
and they all run well

does c++ have such an uniform class library so that I could just learn
only one time
and then I can use it in c++builder or vs.net or gcc, just the same
codes
what's this uniform class library's name?

if they(c++builder , vs.net,gcc) use different librarys, what class
library do they use?
which library is most usefully or most common ?

Thank you very much in advance.

[JTL]

it sounds interesting that Qt and wxWidgets can be used in windows and
linux
I know nothing about the C++ world...

if I don't need UI,the STL is the best choice to learn,is it right£¿

do Qt or wxWidgets need a runtime environment?
(just as java need the JRE and .net need the .net framework)

as in WindowsXP,how do they build a window?
in java,it call JRE,and JRE call the windows API,is it right£¿
in .net,it call .net framework,and .net framework call the windows
API,is it right£¿
but in MFC or Qt or wxWidgets,it just call the windows API directly to
make a window,is it right£¿

so the .net must need the customer to install the .net framework(like
java)
but Qt or wxWidgets don't need so, just run it,is it right£¿

[eriwik]

On Dec 5, 11:17 am, "JTL" <jtl.zh...@gmai l.comwrote:

it sounds interesting that Qt and wxWidgets can be used in windows and
linux
I know nothing about the C++ world...

if I don't need UI,the STL is the best choice to learn,is it right？

Yes, since it can be used always (even if you use a GUI) you should
take some time to learn it.

do Qt or wxWidgets need a runtime environment?
(just as java need the JRE and .net need the .net framework)

Don't know about wxWidgets but Qt does not need on. I suspect that
wxWidgets don't need one either, since it's not the Java GUI or .Net
GUI that does require the runtime but rather the languages. I'm not
sure, but it might be possible to do unmanaged .Net GUI, in which case
you would not need a runtime either (but you'll still need the .Net
libraries installed).

as in WindowsXP,how do they build a window?
in java,it call JRE,and JRE call the windows API,is it right？
in .net,it call .net framework,and .net framework call the windows
API,is it right？
but in MFC or Qt or wxWidgets,it just call the windows API directly to
make a window,is it right？

Probably, but you don't have to worry about that.

so the .net must need the customer to install the .net framework(like
java) but Qt or wxWidgets don't need so, just run it,is it right？

Qt will require you to distributa a DLL-file (on windows) along with
your application, unless you compile it statically.

--
Erik Wikström

[JTL]

so all of them must call the windows API finally to make a window
what's this windows API's name?(does it have?)
is it a library or some DLLs?
and what's the "win32 program"
are they the same?

[Evan]

JTL wrote:

so all of them must call the windows API finally to make a window
what's this windows API's name?(does it have?)

The Windows API. ;-)

(No, I'm serious! That's its name. No one ever said that MS products
don't have descriptive names.) It's somewhat infomally called the Win32
API

is it a library or some DLLs?

DLLs are libraries. Specifically, they're ones that could be loaded
during the execution of your program rather than linked in at compile
time. (DLL stands for dynamic link library. Again with the descriptive
names.)

and what's the "win32 program"

A program built that uses the Windows API.
Note though that the Windows API is a pure C API, so you don't get the
benefits of C++ language features. It's very instructive to write at
least a simple program using it at some point, but I'm not sure that I
would want to use it for an actual project because it's not C++.

I don't quite get what all the hating is with MFC actually, especially
among those who advocate wxWidgets. There's some MFC macro uglyness,
but that's also present in wxWidgets. (At least was a couple years
ago...) However, the other posters are correct in saying that its on
its way out. MS is pushing .Net now, and Windows Forms.

Evan

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Evan:

>
Note though that the Windows API is a pure C API, so you don't get the
benefits of C++ language features. It's very instructive to write at
least a simple program using it at some point, but I'm not sure that I
would want to use it for an actual project because it's not C++.

Parts of the Windows API are adapted to script languages, and large
tracts of it (the COM-based parts) are adapted to early C++.

I don't quite get what all the hating is with MFC actually, especially
among those who advocate wxWidgets.

Mostly that MFC employs two-phase construction. From that, other
equally Bad things follow, which can be summarized as dynamic type
checking and no type checking replacing static type checking. That's
not to say that any particular other library is better, just that MFC
was intentionally designed for C programmers moving to C++: the most
C++'ish features were IIRC removed from the original more C++-like
framework called AFX (that name still lingers in MFC's code).

It's an example of the market place not being ready for radical change
but accepting with whooping joy a small incremental change (it's just
like we always done -- easily recognized -- only better!), which
then becomes a de facto standard for some years, until its bizarre
limitations become too painful to stand.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[bogdan]

"""JTL ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á):
"""

I have learnt java before and now begin to learn c++

what puzzle me is that seem that different SDKs(c++builder , vs.net,
gcc..) has its own class library
we know that in java there are only one uniform class library
so that the codes I written in JBuilder can just copy to JCreator or
Eclipse
and they all run well

does c++ have such an uniform class library so that I could just learn
only one time
and then I can use it in c++builder or vs.net or gcc, just the same
codes
what's this uniform class library's name?

if they(c++builder , vs.net,gcc) use different librarys, what class
library do they use?
which library is most usefully or most common ?

Thank you very much in advance.

http://magegame.ru/?rf=626f6764616e

[kwikius]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

<..>

Mostly that MFC employs two-phase construction. From that, other
equally Bad things follow, which can be summarized as dynamic type
checking and no type checking replacing static type checking.

>From what I can see some form of two phase construction seems to be

necessary, and it seems to be the way things are done in most GUI libs.
At the level of the application window at least:

int main()
{
my_window w;

w.start(); // or run or open or modal loop etc

// if here user pushed button "Exit" or whatever

}

Once the window is 'switched on' the application turns form a
procedural application to an event driven one. Without differentating a
dead and live window (IOW if using single phase construction) you can't
pass windows around before the window event loop starts:

void f(window w)
{
/* ... do something with window*/
}
int main()
{
window w; // single phase construction style window
f(w) ;// f actually entered only after the window has been closed
}

regards
Andy Little

[IR]

kwikius wrote:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

<..>

>Mostly that MFC employs two-phase construction. From that, other
equally Bad things follow, which can be summarized as dynamic
type checking and no type checking replacing static type
checking.

>>From what I can see some form of two phase construction seems to
be

necessary, and it seems to be the way things are done in most GUI
libs. At the level of the application window at least:

int main()
{
my_window w;

w.start(); // or run or open or modal loop etc

// if here user pushed button "Exit" or whatever

}

Once the window is 'switched on' the application turns form a
procedural application to an event driven one. Without
differentating a dead and live window (IOW if using single phase
construction) you can't pass windows around before the window
event loop starts:

void f(window w)
{
/* ... do something with window*/
}
int main()
{
window w; // single phase construction style window
f(w) ;// f actually entered only after the window has been
closed
}

A window and it's contents exist and can be accessed/modified
independently of whether you are running the event loop or not (does
Send(Notify)Mes sage ring a bell?).

So there is really no need for that evil two-phase construction.
Cheers,
--
IR

[kwikius]

IR wrote:

A window and it's contents exist and can be accessed/modified
independently of whether you are running the event loop or not (does
Send(Notify)Mes sage ring a bell?).

So there is really no need for that evil two-phase construction.

int main()
{
one_phase_windo w w;
}

Where exactly are you going to put your send_message in, before the
window runs, or after it quits?

regards
Andy Little

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* kwikius:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

<..>

>Mostly that MFC employs two-phase construction. From that, other
equally Bad things follow, which can be summarized as dynamic type
checking and no type checking replacing static type checking.

>>From what I can see some form of two phase construction seems to be

necessary, and it seems to be the way things are done in most GUI libs.
At the level of the application window at least:

int main()
{
my_window w;

w.start(); // or run or open or modal loop etc

// if here user pushed button "Exit" or whatever

}

Once the window is 'switched on' the application turns form a
procedural application to an event driven one. Without differentating a
dead and live window (IOW if using single phase construction) you can't
pass windows around before the window event loop starts:

void f(window w)
{
/* ... do something with window*/
}
int main()
{
window w; // single phase construction style window
f(w) ;// f actually entered only after the window has been closed
}

Since you're (as I recall) developing a GUI framework for C++ with the
aim of inclusion in Boost or perhaps even the standard (that would be
C++1x?), it is perhaps on-topic to discuss this.

No, two-phase construction is not necessary, not even for modal dialogs.
The main thing to note about about modal dialogs is that from the
client code's view they're not really windows. They're functions.

I once implemented a little app -- it's a Windows system tray app for
controlling the screen saver -- just demonstrating the principle, that
once you have an object in hand, it's fully constructed and working,
strict C++ RAII principle. There are a few bugs but people were very
happy with it; I use it myself... You can find the source code at <url:
http://home.no.net/alfps/root/programs/ScreenSaverMana ger/download.html>.

Since then, early 2002, others have reportedly done the same but as
full-fledged GUI frameworks.

One that at least from the discussion about it sounded very OK, using
templates and the standard library and strictly C++ RAII-oriented, was
discussed in a series of articles in some C++ magazine (not DDJ);
perhaps you'll find it by searching the net.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?