471,338 Members | 1,030 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,338 software developers and data experts.

Compite Native code with .NET 2003

Hi!

Is there anyway to compile native Win32 application with .NET 2003 and
thus write program for computer which doesn't have the framwork
installed ?

If not ----> gcc!!

Thanks.

Jul 21 '05 #1
15 1327

<je********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
Hi!

Is there anyway to compile native Win32 application with .NET 2003 and
thus write program for computer which doesn't have the framwork
installed ?

If not ----> gcc!!

Thanks.


Yes, C++ is part of VS2003.

Willy.
Jul 21 '05 #2

Willy Denoyette [MVP] wrote:
<je********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
Hi!

Is there anyway to compile native Win32 application with .NET 2003 and thus write program for computer which doesn't have the framwork
installed ?

If not ----> gcc!!

Thanks.


Yes, C++ is part of VS2003.

Willy.


Ok, but is there anyway to specify VS2003 GUI to use C++ in place of
cl.exe ? If I'm using the GUI it's to avoid dealing with the makefile
business. I checked out the different project settings and I didn't
notice anything about native compilation or an option to choose the
compiler...

If you have any clues, let me know.

Thanks.

Jul 21 '05 #3

<je********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Willy Denoyette [MVP] wrote:
<je********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi!
>
> Is there anyway to compile native Win32 application with .NET 2003 and > thus write program for computer which doesn't have the framwork
> installed ?
>
> If not ----> gcc!!
>
> Thanks.
>


Yes, C++ is part of VS2003.

Willy.


Ok, but is there anyway to specify VS2003 GUI to use C++ in place of
cl.exe ? If I'm using the GUI it's to avoid dealing with the makefile
business. I checked out the different project settings and I didn't
notice anything about native compilation or an option to choose the
compiler...

If you have any clues, let me know.

Thanks.


In vs2003 if you can create a visual c++ win32 project, automatically the
project will be built using the VS C++ compiler and generate native code
that doesn't require the .NET framework.

Willy.
Jul 21 '05 #4
Willy,
that doesn't require the .NET framework.

Does not use the benefits from the .NET framework.

:-)))

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #5
I'm sorry to insist, but I created the application using the "win 32
project" label and when I launch the application on a computer without
the Framework, he asks for MSVCR71D.dll (or MSVCR71.dll). I assumed it
was a framework stuff. This dll is related to Visual 7.1 obviously, and
I guess that you don't need to install visual to run application
compiled with it ?

Thanks.

Jul 21 '05 #6
I'm sorry to insist, but I created the application using the "win 32
project" label and when I launch the application on a computer without
the Framework, he asks for MSVCR71D.dll (or MSVCR71.dll). I assumed it
was a framework stuff. This dll is related to Visual 7.1 obviously, and
I guess that you don't need to install visual to run application
compiled with it ?

Thanks.

Jul 21 '05 #7
I just ask to be conviced. What are the benefits ?
Note that I'm using C++, fox-toolkit for the interface and boost
libraries for some utilities.
So what are the benefits of the framework, compared with the obligation
to install it on every machine that need to execute the application.

Let's be clear, I'm not anti-microsoft at all, but I have to say that
this framework is a pain in the a**.

No offense.

Jul 21 '05 #8

<je********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
I'm sorry to insist, but I created the application using the "win 32
project" label and when I launch the application on a computer without
the Framework, he asks for MSVCR71D.dll (or MSVCR71.dll). I assumed it
was a framework stuff. This dll is related to Visual 7.1 obviously, and
I guess that you don't need to install visual to run application
compiled with it ?

Thanks.


No, these are the C runtime DLL's (both debug non debug), you have to deploy
these with your application. You see wheter you use the .NET framework or
native C++ (and even VB) you always have a run-time with it.
Note that these DLL's are installed with the .NET framework, because .NET
needs the C run-time as well.

Willy.


Jul 21 '05 #9
Ok, I understand. It's weird that those dlls are not installed on
windows by default. Maybe there is a way to link statically those
libraries so I don't have to care about it.

I'll take a look and let everybody know on this newsgroup, if ever
someone is interested ;p

Thanks.

Jul 21 '05 #10
Jedi,

Not to offend, however I know that the UK is/was the last country in Europe:

That did not use meters
That did not use kilo's
That did not use a decimal currency
That still drive on the left side of the road (with Eire however they should
because they have to pass England to come on the Continent).

And probably will be the last ones who not are using the Euro in the EU.
Probably they will introduce that a short time after Turkey did that.

I know that your arguments are that not using those is better. I know the
arguments you are from Brittain.

Do you want me to say more?

Just my thought,

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #11
Sorry,

I could not resist on this one.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #12

<je********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
Ok, I understand. It's weird that those dlls are not installed on
windows by default. Maybe there is a way to link statically those
libraries so I don't have to care about it.

I'll take a look and let everybody know on this newsgroup, if ever
someone is interested ;p

Thanks.


Those DLL's are never installed by default unless the OS or OS components
needs them itself.
For instance Windows 2003 (as part of .NETv1.1) and XP SP2 do install these,
while others like W98, NT4 don't, which quite normal as these OS predate
this version of the C runtime.

Willy.

Jul 21 '05 #13
Well, if these are your arguments, I think I'm not doing any mistake
here.
Moreover, as a french, I totally agree with you about England, it's
maybe the reason why I never been there.

Allez, sans rancunes. ;)

PS: I'm quite flattered that you thought I was english, my writing
skills are not so bad finally!

Jul 21 '05 #14
On 21 Apr 2005 12:12:56 -0700, je********@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
PS: I'm quite flattered that you thought I was english, my writing
skills are not so bad finally!


The .uk at the end of your email led us to believe you were British.
Jul 21 '05 #15
<je********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
I just ask to be conviced. What are the benefits ?
Note that I'm using C++, fox-toolkit for the interface and boost
libraries for some utilities.
So what are the benefits of the framework, compared with the obligation
to install it on every machine that need to execute the application.
Developer productivity generally. The .NET Framework has a *huge* set of
consistent APIs logically organised. A lot of the classes are high-level,
allowing for quick use, in fact many components do not require one line of
code, and are merely configured via XML-based configuration files. In
addition to that, you also have access to the lower level components as
well. So, for example, you could use Remoting to communicate between
machines which requires little more than a few configuration settings, or
you could use the TcpClient and TcpListener to give you high-level access to
the networking communications, or you could consume raw Sockets. This
combination of high-level and low-level access is one of the main things I
like about the Framework. Keep in mind that .NET low-level is fairly
high-level for C++, but with very little loss of flexibility and power.

In addition, C# has a simpler and cleaner syntax than C++, and is much
easier to write, read and debug. Finally, Garbage Collection. No more
dangling pointers or undeleted memory.
Let's be clear, I'm not anti-microsoft at all, but I have to say that
this framework is a pain in the a**.
If you're deploying across the Web, agreed. If you have control over the
PC's though (e.g. in a corporate environment), installing a .NET application
with the framework will take very little more time than a similar C++ app.
No offense.

Jul 21 '05 #16

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

7 posts views Thread by Jacky Luk | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Tim Menninger | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Martin Zenkel | last post: by
15 posts views Thread by jedi200581 | last post: by
10 posts views Thread by Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950 | last post: by
reply views Thread by rosydwin | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.