Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> If one wants to do any programming for Windows, one must learn the 
>> Windows API.
> 
> This is untrue. There are many portable systems layered on top of 
> Windows that keep you from having to learn anything about the Windows 
> API as such. Heck, even .NET insulates you 99% from having to know 
> anything about Windows as such.


Yes, I'm using far too many generalities. Certainly Microsoft products keep
one from having to deal directly with "Windows as such" and I have seen
pretty slick plots done using Python and the appropriate tools. What does
  the Pov-Ray code do in this regard and in what sections of code was
kind of my original question which no one seems to have addressed. But,
  at this point, I don't think it would help me much to know.

David

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> > I assume you mean "F*** you David".Don't be afraid to say what you mean.
> > Or better still if you can't make a rational reply, don't say anything.
> >
> > It looks like this thread is dead, probably I never should have started it.
> > Thanks to all who tried to help.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > It doesn't look like I'm
> >
> >



BTW, "FUD" - at least in this context - has most likely nothing to do with The
F-Word, and I'd instead take it as the acronym for "Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt"
- a buzzword for an alleged(*) systematic Microsoft stategy to try keep
customers away from competitors' products by invoking a sufficient deal of
"FUD" about them, to make them think they're on the safer side with MS
products. In this context "Microsoft rules them all, so I'd better stick with
Microsoft myself" would be just about the self-fulfilling prophecy Microsoft
would want their customers to believe.

(* I refuse to make a statement here whether that allegation is true or false. I
personally believe it is true, but have no intention of convincing others to
agree.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> - a buzzword for an alleged(*) systematic Microsoft stategy 

Well, an anyone strategy, really. IBM mastered it long before Microsoft was 
founded. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> But, alas,
> much available code was written before XP and apparently the API functions
> have changed. But then I read that Microsoft Visual Whatever version 8.0 is
> incompatible with Version 7.0 .... One seems trapped.

What's the problem there?

(1) The API functions haven't changed. Some may have been added, that's all.
Otherwise we'd see tons of Windows 95 software not working anymore.

(2) Both Visual Whatever 7.0 and 8.0 are XP-era products.

(3) Visual Whatever 8.0 does load (and convert) old 7.0 projects.

(4) As far as POV-Ray is concerned, it comes with both Visual Studio 7.0 and 8.0
project files :)

There is some truth to it insofar as Microsoft seems to be shifting away from
MFC and even the newer ATL towards the .NET framework. But MS Visual Studio
..NET 2005 (aka VS 8.0) will happily not only compile old VC++ 6.0 MFC code, but
also let you set up new MFC-based projects.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> But I have learned some things lately. If one wants to do any
> programming for
> Windows, one must learn the Windows API. To many things, such as
> memory management, are involved.

That's not true. Maybe you need a basic understanding about how things work in
the Windows API, but most C++ frameworks will happily prevent you from ever
having to get into details, unless you really want to.

If you want to do *without* a framework, then yes, you'll have a steep learning
curve ahead of you.


> I had a vastly overly simplistic view
>   of the situation. I wonder how Linux does things, but I'm afraid
> learning it
> at this point is not a live option.

With Linux the thing gets even more troublesome: There's no such thing as "the"
Linux GUI API. It depends on the desktop environment you're using, e.g. KDE,
Gnome, or what-have-you. The good news is that they all share a common
denominator, the X Windowing System; the bad news is that I heard tell that
it's a monster, too. (But I may be utterly wrong about this; the only time I
ever had to do graphical output on Unix from C/C++ code, I resorted to sending
PostScript output to the screen via GhostScript - But back then I had just
begun to learn C/C++, the Intarwebs was still a toddler, and I didn't have the
slightest clue how to google it all up... or rather, altavista it up :P)

However, I bet that just like with Windows, there's a host of frameworks out
there to simplify your life in Linux as well. And maybe a few that even have an
implementation for both, so that you wouldn't have to change a single thing to
port your app to the other OS.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > David H. Burns wrote:
> >> If one wants to do any programming for Windows, one must learn the
> >> Windows API.
> >
> > This is untrue. There are many portable systems layered on top of
> > Windows that keep you from having to learn anything about the Windows
> > API as such. Heck, even .NET insulates you 99% from having to know
> > anything about Windows as such.
>
>
> Yes, I'm using far too many generalities. Certainly Microsoft products keep
> one from having to deal directly with "Windows as such" and I have seen
> pretty slick plots done using Python and the appropriate tools. What does
>   the Pov-Ray code do in this regard and in what sections of code was
> kind of my original question which no one seems to have addressed. But,
>   at this point, I don't think it would help me much to know.
>
> David

If you want to find out how POV-Ray for Windows does the thing, the point to
start your excursion is probably the .../windows/pvdisplay.cpp file. I never
bothered to dive into the code for POV-Ray's Windows UI, but I just spotted
some Windows API calls there (CreateWindowEx() for instance).

It seems that POV-Ray does things the hard way, using the Windows API directly -
at least as far as the render window is concerned.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> towards the .NET framework.

We have three! And every one is a pretty completely different conceptual 
framework from the one before!  Isn't progress wonderful? :-)  I wouldn't 
count learning .NET graphics as a long term investment, altho the general 
concepts (nested widgets, layouts, event dispatch, etc) are similar amongst 
many graphical toolkits.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

And it almost killed them. Microsoft didn't appear to have that strategy
before. I'm understand that that change coincides with some changes in
Microsoft management. I didn't understand the buzzword -- a danger
with the use of all buzzwords. Also "FUD" resembles an obscenity.

Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> - a buzzword for an alleged(*) systematic Microsoft stategy 
> 
> Well, an anyone strategy, really. IBM mastered it long before Microsoft 
> was founded. :-)
>

Post a reply to this message

Thanks.

clipka wrote:

> If you want to find out how POV-Ray for Windows does the thing, the point to
> start your excursion is probably the .../windows/pvdisplay.cpp file.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> towards the .NET framework.
> 
> We have three! And every one is a pretty completely different conceptual 
> framework from the one before!  Isn't progress wonderful? :-) 

C. S. Lewis has compared "progress" to a good egg becoming rotten.
Not all change and increase in complexity are good.

  I wouldn't count learning .NET graphics as a long term investment, altho
> the general concepts (nested widgets, layouts, event dispatch, etc) are 
> similar amongst many graphical toolkits.
> 
I bought VB.Net and how to books(the first edition ?). I did figure out how
  to display an image and maybe how to print "Hi there", but didn't really
have the time and interest to learn its peculiarities.

I don't understand current programming strategies -- I may have never
understood programming strategies. In the long run, it's probably better to
  understand the programming, but there are many short terms goals that
don't require that.

Post a reply to this message