|
darkonoid wrote: i am using .net c++
You just told me you don't want to use .net. Here you are saying you are using it. Make up your mind, then.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
i use vs2005 platform because environment is capable, but when i run the executable file, it should not related with .net framework.
when i say .net platform, i mention visual studio 2005/2008
|
|
|
|
|
What kind of project are you creating? If you are creating .net projects, then you are stuck with the framework. If you don't want to use the framework, then go with MFC.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
i create mfc applications on visual studio 6.0, but i want to create more quickly and easily. so i use visual studio 2005, however mfc applications needs .net framework on any machines
|
|
|
|
|
darkonoid wrote: however mfc applications needs .net framework on any machines
Not so. MFC and .net are two completely different things.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you want to be really adventurous and mix the two together 
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
i couldn't tell what i want  , english is not my native language 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there.
have you try this my friends ?
if your project is an win32 application project !! i think you can use this configuration :
Project menu --> project properties --> configuration properties --> general --> in project defaults group select No Common Language Runtime support for common language runtime support .
your application will never need to .net framework
DMASTER
|
|
|
|
|
That'll work as well. I think the OP wasn't sure exactly what he was going to develop with.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Let me know about your feedback about my article and application available for download at
http://www.coolapps.net/composite.htm and http://www.coolapps.net respectively.
Application is fully functional and developed in MFC. Download from www.coolapps.net. Part of the source code is also shared.
Trust me, developing a webservice by hand-coding the soap stuff is not trivial, but requires real effort.
mbhat
|
|
|
|
|
mbhat wrote: Let me know about your feedback about my article and application available for download at
http://www.coolapps.net/composite.htm and http://www.coolapps.net respectively.
Application is fully functional and developed in MFC. Download from www.coolapps.net. Part of the source code is also shared.
Trust me, developing a webservice by hand-coding the soap stuff is not trivial, but requires real effort.
Don't use the forums for advertising like this and don't cross-post. If you want to advertise on CP, do it the right way and purchase advertising space.
Scott.
—In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
—Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
[ Forum Guidelines] [ Articles] [ Blog]
|
|
|
|
|
What part of quit spamming does not register?
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
How can use the left-hand operator in CPoint class. I was try to this statement.
if((m_ptCenEllipse << m_ptCenRectangle) == 2)<br />
{<br />
m_ptCenEllipse = m_ptCenRectangle;<br />
}
error C2678: binary '<<' : no operator defined which takes a left-hand operand of type 'class CPoint' (or there is no acceptable conversion)
modified 13-Mar-13 6:09am.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot use that operator, since the CPoint class hasn't it. BTW what you expect that such operator should do in your code?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I'm writing a game application with a main lobby where players can select a game which opens in a different frame window.
Players can open several games at a time so actually there's only one view that needs to be rendered at a time.
The game loop should respond to key and mouse events using directInput (directX). My question is where do i place the game loop? Should it be in the main application's run method? Should it answer onpaint messages on the currently active view?
Thanks in advnace.
Snir_ya.
|
|
|
|
|
snir_ya wrote: My question is where do i place the game loop?
This is an open ended question as we don't really know your plan. Are these individual games running in their own process space, in a new thread, or what?
Each game (assuming they are independent) should have its own main loop more times than not - even if they have to interact with one another via IPC or whatever.
Also, don't put your main game loop in WM_PAINT for D3D or DD. It should be independent of GDI operations and either ran in or called from within the process' main loop (e.g.; WinMain(), main(), etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: don't put your main game loop in WM_PAINT
mmmm...oatmeal...
Happy new year Jeremy!
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Salsbery wrote: mmmm...oatmeal...
Mark Salsbery wrote: Happy new year Jeremy!
You too man! Here's to another great year of procrastination! 
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Here's to another great year of procrastination!
I'm putting that off for a while...
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers Jeremy and Mark - Happy new year to ya too.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello gurus,
For the wellknown Double-Checked Locking pattern,
http://www.ddj.com/184405726?pgno=1
Step 1: Allocate memory to hold a Singleton object.
Step 2: Construct a Singleton object in the allocated memory.
Step 3: Make pInstance point to the allocated memory.
After reading for a couple of times, I still do not understand why some compiler will exchange step 2 and step 3 code? If there are any exception in step 2, the swap code will make pInstance point to an invalid memory address. Any ideas why compiler do the swap?
Singleton* Singleton::instance() {
if (pInstance == 0) {
Lock lock;
if (pInstance == 0) {
pInstance =
operator new(sizeof(Singleton));
new (pInstance) Singleton;
}
}
return pInstance;
}
thanks in advance,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Generally speaking, whenever there isn't a formal specification about the exact implementation detail of a construct, a compiler developer may choose the implemenation he suppose best fullfilling the purpouse.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks CPallini,
I can understand and agree with you that some compiler will swap and some will not -- implementation dependent.
My question is (I want to understand why it swaps in some compiler's implementation), according to the article, it seems that it describes why compiler swaps step 2 and step 3, but I can not understand the reason after reading it.
This is what the article says about they will describe the reason why compiler swaps the order, but I do not find and understand it. Do you have any ideas, guru?
(In section, 4 DCLP and Instruction Ordering)
--------------------
Why they might want to do that is a question
we’ll address in a moment. For now, let’s focus on what happens if they do.
--------------------
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: his is what the article says about they will describe the reason why compiler swaps the order, but I do not find and understand it. Do you have any ideas, guru?
Thank you, but, of course, I'm far of being a guru .
Anyway, I think that authors circumstatiate their affirmation when talk about optimization, i.e. roughly speaking from sentence
Compilers might choose to execute statement...
to
... It should, therefore, not surprise you that they sometimes do.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
