Flexibility of C++


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Flexibility of C++

  1. #1
    Ossu Chang Guest

    Flexibility of C++


    I am getting pretty feed up with the hugh runtime required by VB. Do you think
    MS has any plans to make an option to keep the BASIC language but make more
    powerful options for compiling? So that if a VB programer wanted to they
    could do away with the runtime and make a stand alone EXE?

    Thanks again,

    Ossu
    Share on Google+

  2. #2
    Jonathan Morrison Guest

    Re: Flexibility of C++


    Ossu,
    You have touched on a very sensitive subject that has been debated in countless
    forums by very smart people (smarter than me that is :-) ). That not withstanding,
    here is my two-cents worth (My book also has a section that talks about this
    very thing).

    VB5 introduced the ability to create a native .exe file in Visual Basic with
    no runtime interpreter required. This meant that a Visual Basic app now contained
    native machine instructions that could execute right on the chip just like
    a C++ application. However, the VB team still put all of the VB language
    calls like Mid$, Asc, InStr and MsgBox in the MSVBVM50.DLL/MSVBVM60.DLL.
    So even though you no longer required the MSVBVM50.DLL/MSVBVM60.DLL to run.....
    well - you still required them to run! A lot of people thought that they
    should have made a "light weight" version of the DLL for native .exe VB apps,
    but they didn't
    Now, as not to cast aspersions without investigation - C++ apps built with
    MFC (the C++ equivalent of VB) require a huge runtime library. In fact, distributing
    them is just about as painful as distributing VB apps.
    The upside is that .NET makes a lot of this go away. All languages will be
    interpreted in .NET so that it there will be no requirement for a runtime
    library.

    Hope this answers your question.

    Thanks,
    Jonathan
    "Ossu Chang" <ossu@netzero.net> wrote:
    >
    >I am getting pretty feed up with the hugh runtime required by VB. Do you

    think
    >MS has any plans to make an option to keep the BASIC language but make more
    >powerful options for compiling? So that if a VB programer wanted to they
    >could do away with the runtime and make a stand alone EXE?
    >
    >Thanks again,
    >
    >Ossu


    Share on Google+

  3. #3
    Ossu Chang Guest

    Re: Flexibility of C++


    I understand what you are saying, and I agree. But will .NET allow you to
    make an application that is truely stand alone. meaning here is my EXE and
    that is my entire program. I dont think so. In todays world I dont even think
    you can REALLY do this anymore. I mean even if you write directly to the
    API so when you compile you have a single (C,C++) EXE. That EXE still depends
    on hundreds of DLLs that are shipped with Windows.

    I miss DOS..... ;-)

    "Jonathan Morrison" <jonathanm@mindspring.com> wrote:
    >
    >Ossu,
    >You have touched on a very sensitive subject that has been debated in countless
    >forums by very smart people (smarter than me that is :-) ). That not withstanding,
    >here is my two-cents worth (My book also has a section that talks about

    this
    >very thing).
    >
    >VB5 introduced the ability to create a native .exe file in Visual Basic

    with
    >no runtime interpreter required. This meant that a Visual Basic app now

    contained
    >native machine instructions that could execute right on the chip just like
    >a C++ application. However, the VB team still put all of the VB language
    >calls like Mid$, Asc, InStr and MsgBox in the MSVBVM50.DLL/MSVBVM60.DLL.
    >So even though you no longer required the MSVBVM50.DLL/MSVBVM60.DLL to run.....
    >well - you still required them to run! A lot of people thought that they
    >should have made a "light weight" version of the DLL for native .exe VB

    apps,
    >but they didn't
    >Now, as not to cast aspersions without investigation - C++ apps built with
    >MFC (the C++ equivalent of VB) require a huge runtime library. In fact,

    distributing
    >them is just about as painful as distributing VB apps.
    >The upside is that .NET makes a lot of this go away. All languages will

    be
    >interpreted in .NET so that it there will be no requirement for a runtime
    >library.
    >
    >Hope this answers your question.
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Jonathan
    >"Ossu Chang" <ossu@netzero.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>I am getting pretty feed up with the hugh runtime required by VB. Do you

    >think
    >>MS has any plans to make an option to keep the BASIC language but make

    more
    >>powerful options for compiling? So that if a VB programer wanted to they
    >>could do away with the runtime and make a stand alone EXE?
    >>
    >>Thanks again,
    >>
    >>Ossu

    >


    Share on Google+

  4. #4
    Jonathan Morrison Guest

    Re: Flexibility of C++


    Ossu,
    I too miss DOS on a certain level, but with cool features comes complexity
    - and yes - more DLLs. As far as what .NET will provide in the way of simplifying
    the way things are today .... we'll just have to wait and see.

    -Jonathan
    "Ossu Chang" <ossu@netzero.net> wrote:
    >
    >I understand what you are saying, and I agree. But will .NET allow you to
    >make an application that is truely stand alone. meaning here is my EXE and
    >that is my entire program. I dont think so. In todays world I dont even

    think
    >you can REALLY do this anymore. I mean even if you write directly to the
    >API so when you compile you have a single (C,C++) EXE. That EXE still depends
    >on hundreds of DLLs that are shipped with Windows.
    >
    >I miss DOS..... ;-)
    >
    >"Jonathan Morrison" <jonathanm@mindspring.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>Ossu,
    >>You have touched on a very sensitive subject that has been debated in countless
    >>forums by very smart people (smarter than me that is :-) ). That not withstanding,
    >>here is my two-cents worth (My book also has a section that talks about

    >this
    >>very thing).
    >>
    >>VB5 introduced the ability to create a native .exe file in Visual Basic

    >with
    >>no runtime interpreter required. This meant that a Visual Basic app now

    >contained
    >>native machine instructions that could execute right on the chip just like
    >>a C++ application. However, the VB team still put all of the VB language
    >>calls like Mid$, Asc, InStr and MsgBox in the MSVBVM50.DLL/MSVBVM60.DLL.
    >>So even though you no longer required the MSVBVM50.DLL/MSVBVM60.DLL to

    run.....
    >>well - you still required them to run! A lot of people thought that they
    >>should have made a "light weight" version of the DLL for native .exe VB

    >apps,
    >>but they didn't
    >>Now, as not to cast aspersions without investigation - C++ apps built with
    >>MFC (the C++ equivalent of VB) require a huge runtime library. In fact,

    >distributing
    >>them is just about as painful as distributing VB apps.
    >>The upside is that .NET makes a lot of this go away. All languages will

    >be
    >>interpreted in .NET so that it there will be no requirement for a runtime
    >>library.
    >>
    >>Hope this answers your question.
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Jonathan
    >>"Ossu Chang" <ossu@netzero.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>I am getting pretty feed up with the hugh runtime required by VB. Do you

    >>think
    >>>MS has any plans to make an option to keep the BASIC language but make

    >more
    >>>powerful options for compiling? So that if a VB programer wanted to they
    >>>could do away with the runtime and make a stand alone EXE?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks again,
    >>>
    >>>Ossu

    >>

    >


    Share on Google+

Similar Threads

  1. Re: .NET post only please, Take two.
    By maxcaber in forum .NET
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-11-2001, 11:19 AM
  2. ANN: The XtraGrid Suite & XtraEditors Library - 100% Native .NET Components
    By Developer Express in forum dotnet.announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2001, 03:43 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2001, 03:43 PM
  4. constructor in beta 2
    By Gijs Wassink in forum .NET
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-26-2001, 12:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center