 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
Then get the software.
> know" what a flag value is, since you can just plug in the .h file for
> it, the reference the name in your code.
Or, you know, look up the name in the .h file.
All your complaints along this line come across as whining to me, for some
reason. Like "boo hoo, Microsoft doesn't make my job trivially easy for
free." Maybe it's just a conflict between your style and mine, but that's
why my answers probably sound obnoxious to you too. :-)
> Too much to have something "someplace" in one of their dozens of books
> that listed the actual flags and what their "values" are? Apparently...
No. You probably get such a listing when you go to the class that teaches
you how to manage machines using the codes.
> :p After all, its makes so much more sense to buy a $600 compiler you
> don't need, than a $50 book you "do". ;)
The compiler's free.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
BTW, *is* this actually a problem for you? Or are you just making up
problems so you can complain that you don't know how to solve them? Have you
ever actually any time in your life needed to know what an event log entry
meant in order to solve a problem, when it would be difficult to look it up
online?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
>
> Then get the software.
>
>> know" what a flag value is, since you can just plug in the .h file for
>> it, the reference the name in your code.
>
> Or, you know, look up the name in the .h file.
>
Which you can't do ***if you don't have the compiler***. Think you
missed that. Most language MS puts out "do not include" the .h files
that only work with VC++/VC# anyway, so if you don't buy "both", you
don't have any way to "look up" the value.
> All your complaints along this line come across as whining to me, for
> some reason. Like "boo hoo, Microsoft doesn't make my job trivially easy
> for free." Maybe it's just a conflict between your style and mine, but
> that's why my answers probably sound obnoxious to you too. :-)
>
No, its called saving money. I hate spending stupid amounts of money for
books, which don't include the data I need, then spending a mess of time
hunting their pages, only to find the "same" references in the books,
and messes of C++/C# code as the "only" examples, then hunting google,
to find that there isn't anything on the specific function I am trying
to use, which isn't "also" in the C++/C#, etc. All leading to the
conclusion that the only way to "find" the information is by buying
which ever version of the VC++/VC# system **actually** included the
particular .h that you need. And, if its an older API call, you might
need the "developer" version.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent, in some cases, of telling
someone, "Well, is real simple. If you can't figure out how such and
such object is defined in an AutoCAD file, just spend thousands on a
copy of AutoCAD, and read "its" documentation on the subject. So, if its
your "style" to go out and buy everything they want you to, simply
because its the easiest way to get at the information, then hell yes our
"styles" differ. ;) lol
>> Too much to have something "someplace" in one of their dozens of books
>> that listed the actual flags and what their "values" are? Apparently...
>
> No. You probably get such a listing when you go to the class that
> teaches you how to manage machines using the codes.
>
Right.. Throw more money at it. lol But, true.. I do have an "ancient"
version of VC++ that "almost" would have helped me. Sadly, it was like
3.0, and the feature was introduced in 4.0/5.0, and by the time I
realized I needed it, you couldn't "find" 6.0 any place, which was the
last one you could "get" the libraries in, without going for the full
"developer" version.
But, point is, in contrast, years back I bought books on the Apple IIgs
API, when had one. It "included" the flag values in the examples, and
had entire tables at the end, which included them, as part of the books
on each API. The MS books.. are just a compilation of functions, often
with little or no examples, and "nothing" to tell you what any of the
flags actually where, just their names. Got to be the most frustrating
documentation I have ever seen. Hell, I am not sure they even tell you
what "TRUE" and "FALSE" are, never mind that they can be 2-3 different
definitions, depending on the language used, which would rather imply
that "maybe" knowing the name, or thinking you do, isn't "always" the
same as knowing the correct value. ;)
>> :p After all, its makes so much more sense to buy a $600 compiler you
>> don't need, than a $50 book you "do". ;)
>
> The compiler's free.
>
Umm. Only if you want to use the "latest" APIs. If, for some reason, you
are trying to update, modify, understand, or just "code for" an older
pre-.NET API, then "no it isn't". You still have to buy the full
"developer" version. I know. I tried that path on one project I was
attempting a while back. If it was free, it wouldn't require you to buy
a higher level version, to get "backward compatible" library
definitions. Just saying. ;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
>
> BTW, *is* this actually a problem for you? Or are you just making up
> problems so you can complain that you don't know how to solve them? Have
> you ever actually any time in your life needed to know what an event log
> entry meant in order to solve a problem, when it would be difficult to
> look it up online?
>
Is it now? No. Its **was**. Less than a year ago I had dialup, and
having to hunt pages for stuff, some of which could time out on the
connection, all which took forever to load, and which I "sometimes"
didn't have access to, wasn't fun at all. And, as others have pointed
out, its "not" always as simple as "does your home computer have
internet access?". Some times its someone else's machine some place,
where you don't.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Which you can't do ***if you don't have the compiler***.
Yes you can. It's in the Windows SDK, which is a free download. You don't
need *any* compiler to look up the values.
> conclusion that the only way to "find" the information is by buying
> which ever version of the VC++/VC# system **actually** included the
> particular .h that you need. And, if its an older API call, you might
> need the "developer" version.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E6E1C3DF-A74F-4207-8586-711EBE331CDC&displaylang=en
http://www.microsoft.com/express/product/default.aspx
Viola! Free compiling, libraries, and examples!
> Right.. Throw more money at it. lol
It's your job. Your employer should be throwing money at it.
> But, point is, in contrast, years back I bought books on the Apple IIgs
> API, when had one. It "included" the flag values in the examples, and
> had entire tables at the end, which included them, as part of the books
> on each API.
I don't know what to say. I never had any sort of problem like you're
talking about.
>>> :p After all, its makes so much more sense to buy a $600 compiler you
>>> don't need, than a $50 book you "do". ;)
>>
>> The compiler's free.
>>
> Umm. Only if you want to use the "latest" APIs. If, for some reason, you
> are trying to update, modify, understand, or just "code for" an older
> pre-.NET API, then "no it isn't". You still have to buy the full
> "developer" version.
Welcome to commercial software development. Hold on to the old versions of
your software.
> I know. I tried that path on one project I was
> attempting a while back. If it was free, it wouldn't require you to buy
> a higher level version, to get "backward compatible" library
> definitions. Just saying. ;)
So, your primary complaint is that a commercial software company only gives
away for free their latest supported version of software, and that if you
don't have an old version, you have to pay them $50 or $100 to get it?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Is it now? No. Its **was**. Less than a year ago I had dialup, and
> having to hunt pages for stuff, some of which could time out on the
I think we're all aware that using web apps with crappy connectivity is
annoying. I'm asking whether you ever had to look up event log ID codes when
you didn't have connectivity? And, had you, would it have actually helped
you solve the problem?
Just curious.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Right.. Throw more money at it. lol
>
> It's your job. Your employer should be throwing money at it.
>
Umm. Actually, no it isn't. If I had a job that involved "coding", I
wouldn't have as many problems getting the information I need. I am one
of the poor unfortunates that has to pay for this stuff with "my own
money", and doesn't make $15+/hr, or what ever the going rate is. It...
kind of puts a cramp into "solving" little issues like getting software
you need. ;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Is it now? No. Its **was**. Less than a year ago I had dialup, and
>> having to hunt pages for stuff, some of which could time out on the
>
> I think we're all aware that using web apps with crappy connectivity is
> annoying. I'm asking whether you ever had to look up event log ID codes
> when you didn't have connectivity? And, had you, would it have actually
> helped you solve the problem?
>
> Just curious.
>
These specific ones, probably not. But, I would have loved to have some
sort of "sane" explanations for error codes back in Win 98, when
something blue screened do to a DLL getting hosed, or other glitches,
which is a similar situation. Reinstalling really isn't a "fix" for that
stuff, since usually such a reinstall involves either replacing "all"
files, then having to repatch, hoping the same problem doesn't come up,
which was a nightmare with dialup, or replacing a single file **if** you
knew which one, thus possibly introducing an incompatibility, which
would cause a new BSD.
Yeah. Less of a problem now, but I still wish some times that the error
codes you get from their software was a bit clearer, or that even if you
know what the code means, it wasn't so much like modern car mechanics,
where you know the "general" area of the engine that broke, but its not
always clear *which* of three parts are involved, or even if its not
just a sensor glitch, and all of them are OK. lol
Just because I don't have the problem now doesn't mean I a) won't, or b)
haven't in the past, and that there are no reasons to distrust a
internet "dependent" solution to these sorts of things.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> These specific ones, probably not. But, I would have loved to have some
> sort of "sane" explanations for error codes back in Win 98, when
> something blue screened do to a DLL getting hosed, or other glitches,
> which is a similar situation.
Not too similar. In the event logs, the program is running correctly and as
expected, and it inserts information about its progress into the log. In the
BSOD, something has crashed and nobody is really sure what or why, so
generating a meaningful message above the level of the machine's state isn't
really possible.
For example, I worked on a machine once where the OS didn't use any floating
point instructions. If it got a floating point exception while in kernel
mode, all it could do was dump memory and reboot. There wasn't any
reasonable diagnostic beyond "this can't happen." If it happens, there's
some other assumption far away that was violated to cause it.
> Yeah. Less of a problem now, but I still wish some times that the error
> codes you get from their software was a bit clearer, or that even if you
> know what the code means, it wasn't so much like modern car mechanics,
> where you know the "general" area of the engine that broke, but its not
> always clear *which* of three parts are involved, or even if its not
> just a sensor glitch, and all of them are OK. lol
When it breaks, it's not always obvious to the programmer why it broke, so
giving a meaningful error message isn't always possible. If the programmer
knew why it broke, they'd have fixed the problem instead of giving an error
message.
Log entries aren't error messages. They're success messages. If success is
what you're expecting, you don't need to look at the log records.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> When it breaks, it's not always obvious to the programmer why it broke,
> so giving a meaningful error message isn't always possible. If the
> programmer knew why it broke, they'd have fixed the problem instead of
> giving an error message.
>
True, but, too often they don't provide the program with a clear clue
what to do when something goes wrong that "should be" a possible problem
either. :p Computer teacher in high school and the ones in college
"both" said, "Its not enough to assume the data going in is right, so
make sure if its wrong, the program can do something 'rational' with it,
if it is wrong, like generating an error report." ;)
> Log entries aren't error messages. They're success messages. If success
> is what you're expecting, you don't need to look at the log records.
>
Almost like one game on the old Apple IIs, if you hit some combination
of control keys it would generate a message, "Congratulations, you find
a bug we didn't expect." lol It didn't crash, but the result made us
laugh our asses off.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
