Will Pittenger said:
Will Pittenger said: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:[email protected]
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
Chad Myers said: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
andWill Pittenger said:
othercode
thatDrawFrameControl.)
Thatlook
likegraphics
forran
thelook
like askin
your(MFC
and GDI)what I
wasedges
and/orthat
istoalready
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:[email protected]
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
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++
makevery
longlibrary
withhas
alleach
histhings
that
Will Pittenger said: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:[email protected]
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
Chad Myers said: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
andWill Pittenger said:
othercode
thatDrawFrameControl.)
Thatlook
likegraphics
forran
thelook
like askin
your(MFC
and GDI)what I
wasedges
and/orthat
istoalready
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:[email protected]
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
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++
makevery
longlibrary
withhas
alleach
histhings
that
Jay B. Harlow said:
Will Pittenger said:
Chad Myers said: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
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...nstrateswrappingcdllwithmanagedextensions.aspWill Pittenger said:class.)Hope this helps
Jay
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:[email protected]
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:[email protected]
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
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
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++ styleRemember,
elete() or DeleteDCWill Pittenger said: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:[email protected]
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...nstrateswrappingcdllwithmanagedextensions.aspChad Myers said:edges
and/orthat
isand
olderGood
luck.to----------
Will Pittenger
E-Mail: mailto:[email protected]
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
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++
makevery
longlibrary
withhas
all theeach
his own,C/C++
code.in
messagethings
that I
Will Pittenger said: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:[email protected]
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
Chad Myers said: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 said:
Niall said: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
measuredWill Pittenger said: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:[email protected]
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
Chad Myers said: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
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
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:[email protected]
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
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:[email protected]
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
message
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.
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 said:
Chad Myers said: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 said: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:[email protected]
All mail filtered by Qurb (www.qurb.com)
possibleNiall said:Youcomputer,derivation?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:[email protected]
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
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
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 multiplethe
