gamedevlists-windows — List for discussing game development on the Windows platform

Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Rich <leg...@xm...>]

In article <000b01c1a445$cce2aa30$8600a8c0@sboberg6>,
    "Stefan Boberg" <sbo...@te...>  writes:

>   SS definitely works [...]

Depends on your definition of "works".  After we had multiple
developers editing a single file and lost many hours of work due to
SS's brain-dead "merge", we switched to CVS.  I can live without
context menus inside visual studio if the underlying source code
control system isn't going to lose my changes.

I would never recommend SS to anyone based on my experience with it.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
  Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
    Don't Support Spammers!  Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
     <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Wayne C. <wc...@re...>]

>   M$'s reasoning makes perfect business sense. Even though I'd be
> interested to see PTS supported, I can see where they are coming from.
> Also, I think most developers using C++ simply don't have a clue what
> partial template specialisation is and don't really care about it
> either.

Ahh but is that because they don't know what it is they're missing, or
what's it's useful for. Or is it simply because PTS is an esoteric addition
to the language even to people who keep asking for it?

Although it'd be *nice* I've managed okies without it so far :)

FWIW I've used VS.NET beta2 at home since I bought WinXP (yeh, sorry, but I
kinda like MS... lots ;). I find it very nice, although generally it feels
*heavier* to use it's an improvement over VS6 in all areas. By only gripe is
that the document tabs don't work as well as wndtabs for VS6 but that's a
minor one. :)

Wayne
-Virus scanned and cleared ok

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Stefan B. <sbo...@te...>]

> 	Microsoft will not simply implement features because they
> 	are specified in the standard.  They will implement them
> 	when people want them because they are beneficial."
> 
> I'd believe that a whole lot more if it weren't for the fact that the
> entire Windows C++ community has been screaming for better template
> support for several YEARS now and MSVC 7 doesn't have it.

   M$'s reasoning makes perfect business sense. Even though I'd be
interested to see PTS supported, I can see where they are coming from.
Also, I think most developers using C++ simply don't have a clue what
partial template specialisation is and don't really care about it
either.

Cheers,
Stef! :)
--
Stefan Boberg - R&D Manager, Team17 Software Ltd.
bo...@te...

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Stefan B. <sbo...@te...>]

> >      - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, but still 
> >lacks a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial 
> >template specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is 
> >apparently scheduled for the next VC release.
> 
> OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?

   You can control this by passing the /Zc:forScope option. The default
is the old VC6 behaviour, simply because doing anything else would break
lots of old VC6 code.

> Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still work 
> correctly?

  SS definitely works, since you get SS6.0c with the Enterprise
Architect edition of VS.NET. I've not tried Perforce with it however, so
I would not know how well that's integrated.

Cheers,
Stef! :)
--
Stefan Boberg - R&D Manager, Team17 Software Ltd. 
bo...@te...

Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Kent Q. <ken...@co...>]

You're obscuring the point. What I'm concerned about is that MS is
deciding for the rest of the industry what features the standards SHOULD
have included. The feature was added to the standard. Given that many
features people wanted *weren't* added to the standard, I have a
presumption that if it's in the standard, it's a target that compiler
vendors should strive for. 

I don't mind a vendor saying "we couldn't get that one in this time
around, but we're working on it." I do mind them saying "you don't need
that."

	Kent


Paul Bleisch wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Quirk [mailto:ken...@co...]
> > Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
> >
> >
> >       "There are a couple of features of the ANSI/ISO standard (for
> >       instance the 'export' keyword as applied to template classes)
> >       that won't be implemented because they are considered by
> >       Microsoft to be obscure and, at this stage, theoretical. "
> 
> Is there a compiler available that actually supports 'export' for
> templates?  I don't believe GCC does last I checked (which would
> probably be the other most widely used compiler I would guess.)
> 
> disclaimer: I work for ms, I don't work on VC.  I also have never
> felt compelled to use export.
> 
> Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Quirk                   | MindRover: "Astonishingly creative."
Game Architect               | Check it out!
ken...@co...      | http://www.mindrover.com/
_____________________________|_________________________________________

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Paul B. <pa...@mi...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Quirk [mailto:ken...@co...]=20
> Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
>=20
>=20
> 	"There are a couple of features of the ANSI/ISO standard (for=20
> 	instance the 'export' keyword as applied to template classes)=20
> 	that won't be implemented because they are considered by=20
> 	Microsoft to be obscure and, at this stage, theoretical. "

Is there a compiler available that actually supports 'export' for
templates?  I don't believe GCC does last I checked (which would
probably be the other most widely used compiler I would guess.)

disclaimer: I work for ms, I don't work on VC.  I also have never=20
felt compelled to use export. =20

Paul

Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Kent Q. <ken...@co...>]

You'd better read the whole article. They're not including all that
stuff in VC7, but in the next release, which is probably more than a
year away.

Yes, they've got Lippman, so there's at least a hope, but the article is
full of wishy-washy statements about how committed they are to
supporting a compliant version of the compiler. For example:

	"There are a couple of features of the ANSI/ISO standard (for=20
	instance the =91export=92 keyword as applied to template classes)=20
	that won=92t be implemented because they are considered by=20
	Microsoft to be obscure and, at this stage, theoretical. "

	"The emphasis is on a level of compliance that allows popular=20
	libraries to be compiled, not 100% compliance."

In other words, MS is still of the attitude that THEY get to decide what
the standard should be, not standards committees or customers.

And then there's this winner:

	"Microsoft=92s approach to adding new features is whether those=20
	features are=20

		a) being used in code that other compilers can=20
		build, or=20
		b) whether those features are compelling enough=20
		that it becomes apparent that their customers=20
		want them. =20

	Microsoft will not simply implement features because they=20
	are specified in the standard.  They will implement them=20
	when people want them because they are beneficial."

I'd believe that a whole lot more if it weren't for the fact that the
entire Windows C++ community has been screaming for better template
support for several YEARS now and MSVC 7 doesn't have it.

This article reads to me like a softball interview by a captive
journalist who's dying for an excuse to say that MS has finally got
religion on C++.

Like you, I'm frustrated. I'd really much rather have a compliant
compiler from MS so I wouldn't have to trade off that for clean support
of the Windows environment. But I'd summarize the Lippman article as:

	"Please don't leave. We'll get it right* someday*."
			(*terms defined by Microsoft)

	Kent

Matt Davies wrote:
>=20
> For the last few years, I've really liked Microsoft - they are simply t=
he
> best developer supporters in the world for me.  However, I have been re=
ally
> frustrated with the lack of information regarding the conformance of th=
e C++
> standards for templates (i.e. partial template specialisation etc.) but=
 that
> quote has rekindled my complete faith in Microsoft as a company that
> listens.  I have been messing around with Boost and Loki for a while no=
w as
> well as doing my own stuff but have been forced to use Borland C++ to d=
o
> this.  I just hope the VisualC I've been waiting for comes soon.
>=20
> Matt Davies
> Programmer, Confounding Factor
> ma...@co...
> www.confounding-factor.com
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gam...@li...
> [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
> Rich
> Sent: 22 January 2002 20:52
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
>=20
> In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>,
>     Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...>  writes:
>=20
> > As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 a=
re
> just
> > around the corner as well.
>=20
> Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-)
>=20
> > As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use
> > ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on=
?
>=20
> (As an aside, ATL's smart COM pointer class is quite handy even if you
> never use anything else from ATL.)
>=20
> > Things like partial template specialization, better template support =
in
> > general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what
> interest
> > me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be s=
old
> if
> > it could compile Blitz++ ;)
>=20
> Yes, I think Blitz is one of the things specifically they say they are
> targetting for support.  The template support is much improved.  MS
> just hired Stanley Lippman (of "C++ Primer" fame, among others) as the
> main architect guy for VC++.  There is an interview with him on the
> Visual C++ home page.
> <http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.asp>
>=20
> I quote from that interview:
>=20
>     "Microsoft is however working to ensure that Visual C++ will
>     compile the most popular libraries such as Boost, Blitz, Loki and
>     a fully compliant version of STL. The emphasis is on a level of
>     compliance that allows popular libraries to be compiled, not 100%
>     compliance."
>=20
> I recommend reading the whole interview for the proper context of that
> last statement.
> --
> Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
>   Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
>     Don't Support Spammers!  Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
>      <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

--=20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Quirk                   | MindRover: "Astonishingly creative."
Game Architect               | Check it out!
ken...@co...      | http://www.mindrover.com/
_____________________________|_________________________________________

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Matt D. <ma...@co...>]

For the last few years, I've really liked Microsoft - they are simply the
best developer supporters in the world for me.  However, I have been really
frustrated with the lack of information regarding the conformance of the C++
standards for templates (i.e. partial template specialisation etc.) but that
quote has rekindled my complete faith in Microsoft as a company that
listens.  I have been messing around with Boost and Loki for a while now as
well as doing my own stuff but have been forced to use Borland C++ to do
this.  I just hope the VisualC I've been waiting for comes soon.


Matt Davies
Programmer, Confounding Factor
ma...@co...
www.confounding-factor.com



-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Rich
Sent: 22 January 2002 20:52
To: gam...@li...
Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net



In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>,
    Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...>  writes:

> As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are
just
> around the corner as well.

Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-)

> As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use
> ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on?

(As an aside, ATL's smart COM pointer class is quite handy even if you
never use anything else from ATL.)

> Things like partial template specialization, better template support in
> general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what
interest
> me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be sold
if
> it could compile Blitz++ ;)

Yes, I think Blitz is one of the things specifically they say they are
targetting for support.  The template support is much improved.  MS
just hired Stanley Lippman (of "C++ Primer" fame, among others) as the
main architect guy for VC++.  There is an interview with him on the
Visual C++ home page.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.asp>

I quote from that interview:

    "Microsoft is however working to ensure that Visual C++ will
    compile the most popular libraries such as Boost, Blitz, Loki and
    a fully compliant version of STL. The emphasis is on a level of
    compliance that allows popular libraries to be compiled, not 100%
    compliance."

I recommend reading the whole interview for the proper context of that
last statement.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
  Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
    Don't Support Spammers!  Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
     <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>

_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Gareth L. <GL...@cl...>]

But in vc7 from my experience ( Using the beta on the xbox ) even with the
extensions on "i" will be out of scope.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Watte [mailto:hp...@mi...]
> Sent: 22 January 2002 23:07
> To: Tom Hubina; gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
> 
> 
> 
> If you turn off compiler extensions, "i" will be out of scope in
> VC6, too. The problem with that is that Windows headers certainly
> don't compile with language extensions turned off :-(
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 			/ h+
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gam...@li...
> > [mailto:gam...@li...]On 
> Behalf Of
> > Tom Hubina
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:53 PM
> > To: gam...@li...
> > Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
> >
> >
> > At 01:42 PM 1/22/2002, Stefan Boberg wrote:
> > >      - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, 
> but still lacks
> > >a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
> > >specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
> > >scheduled for the next VC release.
> >
> > OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?
> >
> > That is
> >
> > for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
> > {
> > }
> > i = 1; // i is out of scope on all compilers except VC 6
> >
> > Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still 
> work correctly?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> > Gam...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
> 

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Brian S. <bs...@mi...>]

I wish I'd known this trick in time for it to do me any good:

	#define for if (0) else for

is your friend :)

--brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Hubina [mailto:to...@3d...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
>=20
> At 01:42 PM 1/22/2002, Stefan Boberg wrote:
> >      - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, but still
lacks
> >a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
> >specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
> >scheduled for the next VC release.
>=20
> OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?
>=20
> That is
>=20
> for(int i =3D 0; i < 5; i++)
> {
> }
> i =3D 1; // i is out of scope on all compilers except VC 6
>=20
> Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still work
correctly?
>=20
> Tom
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Dirk R. <ri...@ph...>]

P4 did work in beta2 but everytime a project was loaded (and we have quite a
lot in our workspaces) there was an annoying message box telling me that all
the source control info was lost from the project files and that the system
hopes that the scc system can recover from this state. The reason for this
was probably the fact that p4 does not store scc info in the project files.
I filed it as a bug but i have not tried the later vc7 versions.

Dirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Tom Hubina
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:53 PM
To: gam...@li...
Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net


At 01:42 PM 1/22/2002, Stefan Boberg wrote:
>      - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, but still lacks
>a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
>specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
>scheduled for the next VC release.

OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?

That is

for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
}
i = 1; // i is out of scope on all compilers except VC 6

Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still work correctly?

Tom


_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Jon W. <hp...@mi...>]

If you turn off compiler extensions, "i" will be out of scope in
VC6, too. The problem with that is that Windows headers certainly
don't compile with language extensions turned off :-(

Cheers,

			/ h+


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gam...@li...
> [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
> Tom Hubina
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
>
>
> At 01:42 PM 1/22/2002, Stefan Boberg wrote:
> >      - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, but still lacks
> >a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
> >specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
> >scheduled for the next VC release.
>
> OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?
>
> That is
>
> for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
> {
> }
> i = 1; // i is out of scope on all compilers except VC 6
>
> Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still work correctly?
>
> Tom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
>

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Tom H. <to...@3d...>]

At 01:42 PM 1/22/2002, Stefan Boberg wrote:
>      - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, but still lacks
>a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
>specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
>scheduled for the next VC release.

OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?

That is

for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
}
i = 1; // i is out of scope on all compilers except VC 6

Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still work correctly?

Tom

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Stefan B. <sbo...@te...>]

> Is anyone here seriously thinking about upgrading their MSVC to MSVC
> .Net?  Information on the latter is very sparse at Microsoft's Web
site,
> and -- here's the killer -- even if it offers incremental
improvements,
> apparently it won't support generating code for Win95(!).  That is
just a
> flat out, no-brainer, deal killer for me because of our particular
> products.

   The Win95 comment only applies to .NET and DX8.1. If you don't use
these API's you're fine regardless of which compiler you use.

   Apart from that... Well, Visual Studio.NET is a *massive* product,
which contains a lot of cool things. Just a few things off the top of my
head:

---- VC++ v7:

     - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, but still lacks
a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
scheduled for the next VC release.

     - The STL implementation is new and improved (although I still use
STLPort4.5 for better cross-platform compatibility). 

     - MFC7 is also a nice step forward (mostly due to better
design-time tools). Good for those quick and dirty tools (although using
C# / the CLR would be preferred where possible).

     - Better code generation.

     - Whole-program optimisation. When using this .obj files actually
contain intermediate representation of the code, and the machine code
gets generated at link-time.

     - Loads of fancy/cool stuff for those poor people who have to write
ActiveX/COM components. Not so interesting to most us perhaps.

---- IDE/debugger:

  - Opinions differ, but I find the new IDE vastly better, and extending
it is almost trivial if you use the .NET framework. You can do some very
nice stuff here. The editors supports collapsing, and IntelliSense is
marginally more clever than VC6. VisualAssist.NET is still worth getting
though.

  - The runtime and debugger support mini-dumps, which is sort of like a
core-dump. When an application crashes and there is no debugger
installed, you get the option to save a crash dump, which can be loaded
back into the VS.NET debugger for further analysis. Very cool. [Although
you don't actually need VS.NET for this... the functionality has been
there for a while in the Platform SDK debugger and DBGHELP.DLL]

---- .NET

  Think what you will about Microsoft, but.NET is amazing. For tools
there is just no other option for me. If only Mono/dotGNU were more
advanced I might even attempt switching over to writing game code using
the CLR. My only problem with it is that there is no support for
STL-like containers.

  For me, it's a very worthwhile upgrade (and a no-brainer since we're
all on MSDN anyway here and thus get it "for free"). It might break some
of your code, but then it's probably because the code was broken in the
first place!

Cheers,
Stef! :)
--
Stefan Boberg - R&D Manager, Team17 Software Ltd.
bo...@te...

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Nathan R. <Nat...@te...>]

'Die' simply seems to be that magical point where the revenue generated by
supporting a particular platform or product is overwhelmed by the cost of
supporting that platform or product. It's just a cold and heartless business
decision and nothing more.

Just so we don't go too far OT here, Tony Cox just posted this in
gd-algorithms:
"The upgraded debugger has more functionality, remote debugging including
into DLLs now 'just works'. The debugger includes multiple memory windows,
and better support for STL debugging."
I'm sold based on that fact alone (if it works as promised.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hubina [mailto:to...@3d...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:58 PM
To: gam...@li...
Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net


At 12:52 PM 1/22/2002, Rich wrote:

>In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>,
>     Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...>  writes:
>
> > As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are 
> just
> > around the corner as well.
>
>Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-)

Define die?

We still have a large number of customers purchasing our games and running 
them on Win95 and NT. Regardless of what MS does, we're still going to 
continue having people buy our games for those systems.

Tom


_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Tom H. <to...@3d...>]

At 12:52 PM 1/22/2002, Rich wrote:

>In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>,
>     Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...>  writes:
>
> > As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are 
> just
> > around the corner as well.
>
>Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-)

Define die?

We still have a large number of customers purchasing our games and running 
them on Win95 and NT. Regardless of what MS does, we're still going to 
continue having people buy our games for those systems.

Tom

Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Rich <leg...@xm...>]

In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>,
    Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...>  writes:

> As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are just
> around the corner as well.

Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-)

> As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use
> ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on?

(As an aside, ATL's smart COM pointer class is quite handy even if you
never use anything else from ATL.)

> Things like partial template specialization, better template support in
> general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what interest
> me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be sold if
> it could compile Blitz++ ;)

Yes, I think Blitz is one of the things specifically they say they are
targetting for support.  The template support is much improved.  MS
just hired Stanley Lippman (of "C++ Primer" fame, among others) as the
main architect guy for VC++.  There is an interview with him on the
Visual C++ home page.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.asp>

I quote from that interview:

    "Microsoft is however working to ensure that Visual C++ will
    compile the most popular libraries such as Boost, Blitz, Loki and
    a fully compliant version of STL. The emphasis is on a level of
    compliance that allows popular libraries to be compiled, not 100%
    compliance."

I recommend reading the whole interview for the proper context of that
last statement.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
  Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
    Don't Support Spammers!  Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
     <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>

RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Nathan R. <Nat...@te...>]

'Supported' also has a double meaning in this case. Even though the code
might run, VC7/VS.net probably doesn't 'support' 95 simply because the
operating system itself is no longer supported by Microsoft.

I couldn't get to the original lifecycle page, but here's Google's cache of
it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:43w9-4bhQ34C:www.microsoft.com/windows/
lifecycle.asp+&hl=en

As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are just
around the corner as well. The upside to the story is that no new bugs will
ever show up since no old bugs will ever get fixed. The downside is that we
have to wait a while longer before they kill WinME...

As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use
ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on?
Things like partial template specialization, better template support in
general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what interest
me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be sold if
it could compile Blitz++ ;)

-Nathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich [mailto:leg...@xm...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:17 PM
To: gam...@li...
Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net 



[man, why can't this list automatically respond to the list, its such
a pain...]

In article <5.1...@wk...>,
    Brian Hook <bri...@py...>  writes:
> Is anyone here seriously thinking about upgrading their MSVC to MSVC 
> .Net?

Well its really VC7.  The ".net" stuff is just marketing hype.

Bug fixes, better generated code, better standard library support,
updated MFC, updated ATL, improved IDE, better automation support in
the IDE, better Wizard support in the IDE, what's not to like?

>Information on the latter is very sparse at Microsoft's Web site, 
> and -- here's the killer -- even if it offers incremental improvements, 
> apparently it won't support generating code for Win95(!).

That sounds like CLR code.  I bet good ole Win32 C++ apps compile to
Win95 just fine.  I can believe that CLR-based stuff (.net languages
like C#, VB.NET, "managed C++ code", etc.) won't run on Win95, but I
expect that plain C++ apps will run just fine.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
  Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
    Don't Support Spammers!  Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
     <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>

_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Rich <leg...@xm...>]

[man, why can't this list automatically respond to the list, its such
a pain...]

In article <5.1...@wk...>,
    Brian Hook <bri...@py...>  writes:
> Is anyone here seriously thinking about upgrading their MSVC to MSVC 
> .Net?

Well its really VC7.  The ".net" stuff is just marketing hype.

Bug fixes, better generated code, better standard library support,
updated MFC, updated ATL, improved IDE, better automation support in
the IDE, better Wizard support in the IDE, what's not to like?

>Information on the latter is very sparse at Microsoft's Web site, 
> and -- here's the killer -- even if it offers incremental improvements, 
> apparently it won't support generating code for Win95(!).

That sounds like CLR code.  I bet good ole Win32 C++ apps compile to
Win95 just fine.  I can believe that CLR-based stuff (.net languages
like C#, VB.NET, "managed C++ code", etc.) won't run on Win95, but I
expect that plain C++ apps will run just fine.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
  Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
    Don't Support Spammers!  Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
     <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>

[GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net

[Brian H. <bri...@py...>]

This was asked on the algorithms list, but since I haven't seen it posted 
here I thought I'd go ahead and bring it up:

Is anyone here seriously thinking about upgrading their MSVC to MSVC 
.Net?  Information on the latter is very sparse at Microsoft's Web site, 
and -- here's the killer -- even if it offers incremental improvements, 
apparently it won't support generating code for Win95(!).  That is just a 
flat out, no-brainer, deal killer for me because of our particular products.

Anyway, I'm curious as to other people's perception of it.

-Brian

Re: [GD-Windows] loading a dll from memory

[Gabor S. <ts...@co...>]

Thanks everybody!
Well, it seems that writing out the dll to the winchester will be the best
way.
I wouldn't like to get to know PE and the internal win32 functions... :)

Cheers
  Gabor Simko

> Hi,
>
> It is possible.  We did it once in a company I worked for.  We had the
> ability to pack dll's and an exe into one exe which was compressed.  A
stub
> decompressed the executables in memory.  I cannot remember the exact
details
> as it was done by another programmer at out company but I can remember it
> being a pain in the butt and it was done through low-level trickery
(needing
> knowledge of the PE32 format) rather than any Win32 API calls.
>
> Sorry I'm not much help, but I know it is possible.
>
>
> Matt Davies
> Programmer, Confounding Factor
> ma...@co...
> www.confounding-factor.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gam...@li...
> [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
> Ben Carter
> Sent: 21 January 2002 01:16
> To: gamedev-windows
> Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] loading a dll from memory
>
>
> On Sunday, January 20, 2002, 10:55:56 PM, someone wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Is there a way to load a dynamic library from the memory instead of
> > a file? I have the dynamic library in the memory and I don't want to
> > write it to the winchester and use LoadLibrary() if it isn't
necessery...
>
>  Unfortunately, I believe this isn't possible, due to the way Windows
> handles shared areas of DLLs by memory-mapping to the file itself - I
> certainly looked around for a way to do it a couple of years ago back
> and couldn't find one.
>
>  That said, if you just want to load a simple DLL you've created (ie
> no sharing between instances, etc), then I think it's fairly
> straightforward to implement your own PE format loader -
> http://www.winehq.org/ would probably be a good place to look if you
> did decide to try that.
>
> --
> Ben Carter - Neko Technologies - be...@gu...
> http://www.neko-tech.com/ - http://www.absoluteterror.com/
> ---------------------------------PGP Key available on request---
> "Broken mirror, a million shades of light,
>  the old echo fades away.
>  But just you and I can find the answer,
>  and then we can run to the end of the world."
>                                 - Small of two pieces, Xenogears
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
>
>

RE: [GD-Windows] loading a dll from memory

[Matt D. <ma...@co...>]

Hi,

It is possible.  We did it once in a company I worked for.  We had the
ability to pack dll's and an exe into one exe which was compressed.  A stub
decompressed the executables in memory.  I cannot remember the exact details
as it was done by another programmer at out company but I can remember it
being a pain in the butt and it was done through low-level trickery (needing
knowledge of the PE32 format) rather than any Win32 API calls.

Sorry I'm not much help, but I know it is possible.


Matt Davies
Programmer, Confounding Factor
ma...@co...
www.confounding-factor.com




-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Ben Carter
Sent: 21 January 2002 01:16
To: gamedev-windows
Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] loading a dll from memory


On Sunday, January 20, 2002, 10:55:56 PM, someone wrote:

> Hi,

> Is there a way to load a dynamic library from the memory instead of
> a file? I have the dynamic library in the memory and I don't want to
> write it to the winchester and use LoadLibrary() if it isn't necessery...

 Unfortunately, I believe this isn't possible, due to the way Windows
handles shared areas of DLLs by memory-mapping to the file itself - I
certainly looked around for a way to do it a couple of years ago back
and couldn't find one.

 That said, if you just want to load a simple DLL you've created (ie
no sharing between instances, etc), then I think it's fairly
straightforward to implement your own PE format loader -
http://www.winehq.org/ would probably be a good place to look if you
did decide to try that.

--
Ben Carter - Neko Technologies - be...@gu...
http://www.neko-tech.com/ - http://www.absoluteterror.com/
---------------------------------PGP Key available on request---
"Broken mirror, a million shades of light,
 the old echo fades away.
 But just you and I can find the answer,
 and then we can run to the end of the world."
                                - Small of two pieces, Xenogears


_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows

RE: [GD-Windows] loading a dll from memory

[Brian S. <bs...@mi...>]
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Re: [GD-Windows] loading a dll from memory

[Ben C. <be...@gu...>]

On Sunday, January 20, 2002, 10:55:56 PM, someone wrote:

> Hi,

> Is there a way to load a dynamic library from the memory instead of
> a file? I have the dynamic library in the memory and I don't want to
> write it to the winchester and use LoadLibrary() if it isn't necessery...

 Unfortunately, I believe this isn't possible, due to the way Windows
handles shared areas of DLLs by memory-mapping to the file itself - I
certainly looked around for a way to do it a couple of years ago back
and couldn't find one.

 That said, if you just want to load a simple DLL you've created (ie
no sharing between instances, etc), then I think it's fairly
straightforward to implement your own PE format loader -
http://www.winehq.org/ would probably be a good place to look if you
did decide to try that.

-- 
Ben Carter - Neko Technologies - be...@gu...
http://www.neko-tech.com/ - http://www.absoluteterror.com/
---------------------------------PGP Key available on request---
"Broken mirror, a million shades of light,
 the old echo fades away. 
 But just you and I can find the answer, 
 and then we can run to the end of the world."
                                - Small of two pieces, Xenogears

[GD-Windows] RE: [Algorithms] OT: windows specific question

[Jon W. <hp...@mi...>]

If it's a module that is already loaded in memory, you can use 
GetModuleHandle to just re-get the same copy (no disk access 
needed).

If it's a module you just created yourself, you probably know where 
the functions live, and you can just set up function pointers 
straight into it to call it. Make sure it's already properly 
relocated at that time, and don't forget to map the memory as 
executable :-)

Cheers,

				/ h+

PS: is there anyone more than me who thinks it's a real shame that 
GetModuleEx isn't available until with Windows XP ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gda...@li...
> [mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Gabor
> Simko
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: 3dgamedev
> Subject: [Algorithms] OT: windows specific question
> 
> 
> Sorry for being offtopic but I can't manage to find the windows
> programmers list after my system's reinstallation (I even don't know
> where gdalgorithms homepage is, they are all lost)
> 
> Is there a way to load a dynamic library from the memory instead of
> a file? I have the dynamic library in the memory and I don't want to
> write it to the winchester and use LoadLibrary() if it isn't necessery...
> 
> Thanks for any replies!
>   Gabor Simko
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 
>