|
Which are good VC++ certificates?
|
|
|
|
|
Oshtri Deka wrote: ...but is there anything similar for plain C++?
How about Brainbench?
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard several divided or confronted opinions about them, what can you say?
|
|
|
|
|
I've taken a handful of their exams. It's ultimately up to the company as to whether or not they recognize the exams/certifications. Mine does not, but I was taking them for my own benefit regardless.
"Old age is like a bank account. You withdraw later in life what you have deposited along the way." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I had ported my application frommVC++ 6.0 to VC++ 9.0.
If i am copying my application exe to other machines, is it enough that the destination machines have .Net Framework 3.5.?
or
Is it manditory the it need VC++ redistributable?
If required what dose VC++ Redist provide which .Net 3.5 framework dosent provide?
Thanks All.
|
|
|
|
|
pratap1980 wrote: what dose VC++ Redist provide
The C and C++ runtime library DLLs from Visual C++ 9 and the MFC DLLs from Visual C++ 9.
If the .Net Framework 3.5 uses the runtime DLLs from VC++9, then it'll need to install them. I wouldn't bet on it using the C/C++ run-time, though, and certainly not MFC.
I would take the simple path, i.e. require the VC++9 redistributables, whether installed to the machine or as a local (to the executable) side-by-side install.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
Do you say if i have VC++ 9.0 redistributabl, i dosent need the .net 3.5 framework?
Rhanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you using .Net 3,5 in your application? If you are, then you need the framework. Otherwise you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
My application is developed using VS 6.0(VC++). Now i migrated it to VC++ 2008
I just compiled my VC++ 6.0 with VS2008. So i think i did not use any .net libraries.
Its all the native code. So do i need .Net 3.5 frame work on the destinaton machine?
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
pratap1980 wrote: Net 3.5
No, all you would need is the MFC libraries.
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy
Individuality is fine, as long as we do it together - F. Burns
|
|
|
|
|
pratap1980 wrote: Its all the native code. So do i need .Net 3.5 frame work on the destinaton machine?
no
|
|
|
|
|
Good afternoon.
I would like to create a Multi Column (2)ComboBox populated by existing (SQL) dataset.
The dataset returns the record ID and the item name (e.g. 1, "Apple"). The comboBox would display the item name, and the record ID would be hidden, but still "tied" to the item name.
Also I would like to reference the 1st colums to be used in another SQL statement.
I noticed a couple of examples (some with DataGrids), but they don't seem to suit our needs.
Thank you,
WHEELS
|
|
|
|
|
For the combo box, can't use you the itemdata to store the record ID? (CComboBox::SetItemData[^])
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> Life: great graphics, but the gameplay sux. <
|
|
|
|
|
I checked out the code at microsoft.com.
I am very new to C#. Could you explain the code in a little detail as I am not entirely sure what it does.
Thank you,
WHEELS
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, you are using C#, you are at the wrong forum here, try the C# forum[^].
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> Life: great graphics, but the gameplay sux. <
|
|
|
|
|
cpuh header is not supported by my compiler .. What should i do to make it support.?
Regards
$iva
|
|
|
|
|
What is 'cpuh' header?
As it stands, neither my compiler supports it, I suppose.
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.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it stands for "ComPiler Unsupported Header"? 
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> Life: great graphics, but the gameplay sux. <
|
|
|
|
|
Sure!
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.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Code-o-mat wrote: Maybe it stands for
CodeProject User Help me pleeeezzzzz it's urgent
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
You will have to give us more details, we do not have enough information to be able to help you.
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> Life: great graphics, but the gameplay sux. <
|
|
|
|
|
any way thanks for all your funny replies ...
Regards
$iva
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
this is quite a newbie question but I would appreciate a lot your help..
Let's suppose I want to implement an algorithm that behaves like the matlab "diff" command, that is given an input array of size N [x(1)......x(n)] it returns an array of N-1 elements [x(2)-x(1) .... x(n) - x(n-1)], like a sort of discrete derivative.
I would like to avoid to use vectors but simply arrays. The problem is I don't know how to create the second array of size N - 1. I could compute the size a priori and pass it as a parameter, but if I write
float* OUTarr = diff(float* INarr)
int size = sizeof(INarr)/sizeof(float);
float OUTarr[size];
two problems arise: first the size is always one (not depending on the real size of INarr) and second there's a compiler error 'expected a constant size'.
The same appears if I pass the size as a parameter of the function.
I know that allocation for arrays is static and actually I can't know the size of the array at compile time, but I could always know the exact size of the array before its allocation, so I shouldn't require the use of dynamic memory...
Thank you in advance for any suggestion!
L.
|
|
|
|
|
Your code has another problem: if you build the array inside the function, as local storage, you cannot return it.
If you're stuck with the above (IMHO bad) design, you may try with a template function, for instance
#include <stdio.h>
float alfa[10]={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
template <int N>
float * diff(float a[N])
{
static float b[N-1];
for (int i=0; i<N-1; i++)
{
b[i] = a[i+1]- a[i];
}
return b;
}
void main()
{
float * beta = diff<10>(alfa);
for (int i=0; i<9; i++)
{
printf("beta[%d]=%f\n", i, beta[i]);
}
}
Please note: the static allocation of b is just a workaround, there are better ways to do it (for instance, the caller may provide storage for b).
Moreover, personally, I prefer dynamic memory allocation for such a task.
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.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
LostPitch wrote: I know that allocation for arrays is static
Only when they're allocated on the stack.
What's wrong with allocating the array on the heap:
float* diff(float* inArr, size_t inArrSize)
{
float* outArr = new float[inArrSize-1];
for(size_t i=0;i<inarrsize-1;++i)>
{
outArr[i] = inArr[i+1]-inArr[i];
}
return outArr;
}
Yes, you need to deallocate it after it's been used with delete[], but hey - it works!
Also - what's with the use of float? Doubles have more bits and are also faster, as floating point hardware is double or bigger internally and has performance penalties for converting to and from single precision floating point data.
LostPitch wrote: I would like to avoid to use vectors
Again - why? vectors (certainly after the TR1 update to the C++ standard) are guaranteed to be as efficient as arrays. They also do all the memory management for you. What's not to like?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
