 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / Managed C++ / October 2007VC++ 2005 Express : Love/Hate Relationship!
I have been using VC++ 2005 Express for a while now. I'm very impressed with the language and GUI environment. But, more to the point, I pretty much adore MANAGED programming, since trying to figure out when it is appropriate to delete something has always been the main problem in C++ programming (in fact, if one analyzes this, garbage collection (i.e., memory freeing) HAS to be done at a level ABOVE the application for many situations). But the 'hate' aspect to it comes in the difficulty I often have trying to figure out how to do something. It is often more frustrating becuase I know it CAN be done, and that there is likely even some aspect of the language/OS that makes it trivially easy to do. But trying to FIND it, that's another thing. Recently I posted (and got a quick excellent response, thanx!) trying to create a new Bitmap and a subsection of an existing Bitmap. I looked for something like: Bitmap^ sub_bm = gcnew Bitmap (source_bm( x,y,w,h ) ) ; which seems like a good construct for this, but it doesn't work. It turns out the answer didn't lie in the Bitmap class at all, but in the Graphics class, using the 'FromImage' method. One uses this method to create a Graphics object that is associated with the newly created sub_bitmap of the approriate size, and then draw a portion of the source bitmap to the sub-bitmap with the Graphics object. How in hell was I suppose to figure that out using MSDN? MSDN is organized like a dictionary : you have to know the NAME of what you are looking up to find it! Thus, it is an EXCELLENT REFERENCE, and a terrible place to LEARN about the possibilities. Problem is, this is all we get as external developers to MS! As I like to describe by analogy: a book which details every component of a car including what each part does, does not give enough information on how to BUILD a car with said components! How components are used and interact is not a part of the description of its parts. The whole is MUCH greater than the sum of its parts! I wish things were like they were back in the old days when Borland dominated. They gave TONS of documentation, including books on language refernece and tutorials, with EVERY language they sold! Visual Studio comes with no documentation, just a link inside the GUI to MSDN. Instead, MS writes excellent descriptions on how to use their language, but SELL these via their MS Press for $100's more. And they aren't compelled to write such books about everything, leaving some features 'invisible' to developers, and might as well not exist (e.g., try to find a book on how to use SAPI). My wish is that if MS sticks with this method (no doco except MSDN), that they take the time to go over MSDN over-and-over and keep adding TUTORIALS ans PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE more CODE examples (there are tons of pages with no descriptions or code exmples) in ALL of the languages (yes, MS wants to push C# since they own it, but C++ examples are necessary if they keep SELLING C++. makes sense, doesn't it?). I often write telling MS about pages missing details and any code exmples (some pages even say 'code example follows' followed by nothing), but I get no response and the pages never change. So I'm at a loss of what I'm 'suppose' to do... But, like I said, MS VC++ 2005 Express is my favorite language right now, just wish I didn't have to research each new aspect I want to use, sometimes for weeks at a time, before getting the info I need to use it (I'm trying to get some clear SAPI information, which seems quite scarce)... [==Peter==] I normally don't editorialize, but I can't help note that you sure want a lot for something that's free. Most of us occasionally cough up some money and buy the appropriate book. You can do the same. It also helps support those experts who go through months of work to prepare such books, if that's any consolation while standing at the till. (Sorry, Peter, not much sympathy from this corner.) Brian "Most of us occasionally cough up some money and buy the appropriate book. You can do the same. It also helps support those experts who go through months of work to prepare such books, if that's any consolation while standing at the till." The first part of my post was how much I appreciate and enjoy the product. I said this first to make it clear I'm not just complaining. I happen to use Express because it satisfies all my needs, so why buy the full version? More on this later... As for books, ironically, today I just got "MS Speech Server" from Amazon, and I bought "C++/CLI The Visual C++ Language for .NET" a few weeks ago. I buy books all the time, including from MS Press if they happen to be available for what I need. Books alone, I've likely spent at least a few tens of thousands of dollars on just technical books over time. I have a technical book collection I've paid at least $3000 for the books included currently. I'm kind of a technical book junky, if it satisfies my needs for the applications I do. Over time, I've also probably paid tens of thousands of dollars for MS products (software and hardware), applied and got a job at Microsoft in Washington to write testing software (but turned it down for my current job), so I'm not exactly reistant to buying stuff and feel somewhat justified to make the observations I've made (I've been programming for 38 years). How does which version I use or buy of VS VC++ 2005 change the development knowledge available to me? That is what I'm criticizing. Recently I'm trying to add speech recognition via SAPI. I have posted in various approriate newsgroups my desire to find a good source of information, specifically asking for a good BOOK I would buy. I've also mentioned I'd be willing to hear about 3rd party speech recognition packages if they exist, but SAPI seems logical since it is built in and likly quite compatible with MS products for some reason (hehe). In fact I'm buying every book I can find that looks remotely close to saying something about SAPI. I bought "Speech Server" for $35 because it has ONE chapter on SAPI (since I just got it I can't say if it will help, but it looks promising). So I'm the farthest thing from a cheapskate in terms of my motivation. I'd buy a good book if it specialized on developing SAPI applications using C++ managed code (possibly with a CD with good code examples and tools) for almost any reasonable price right now if you can point me to it! If you do a google search for SAPI you will find info on how to download new and old SDK's with SAPI in it. But very little on how to use it. In fact, many of the resulting links are to other people noticing the lack of information and asking for such things as code examples, with little or no responses. [I have some leads on some good websites, but I've been casually looking for such information for a few weeks now, and feel the process should be easier than that]. I don't see why it is unreasonable for me to ask that the one official source for information on how to use a language contain information sufficient to use features it contains for the first time. This can be done with tutorials, but good well-documented code examples often do the best job. And such example code must exist if they tested the featrue of the language (and since I was offered a job at MS to write testing code, I'm guessing it exists...hehe). Sure there are lots of topics with code examples, but why is there so many without? Whoever worked on each feature or tested it should be made responsible for making sure their hard work gets the exposure required to maximize its value by making sure clear information is available and easy to find which might be needed in order to use it for the first time. MSDN is a great REFERENCE, but is not a very good source of HOW-TO. Using my analogy from my other post, I sometimes look at MSDN as being given access to a Pep Boys stock and being expected to be able to build a car simply by first finding the parts needed, without even knowing what they are called or exaclty how they are organized, and with lots of similar looking parts, or parts with the same name that don't fit (different version). Now, if you tell me that if I buy the full version of VC++ 2005 I get some 'pass' or 'secret entrance' to a more description of how-to use the features in VC++ managed, especially SAPI, I have plenty of money to buy it. But I'm not going to buy it out of some sense of charity for MS or its employees. Having myself been given a job offer from MS I know they likely have roofs over their heads and food on the table (and some have Ferrari's in the garage and one happens to be the richest guy in the world), and last I heard the MS company isn't too close to declaring backruptcy. So you might not have much sympathy for me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep taking advantage of exactly what MS has made free, since they know it is symbiotic for me to develop with THEIR tools. I'm not just going to buy something from MS to reward them. Especially since they benefit just fine from the products I develop, as people have to buy THEIR operating system to run them (and I've heard Windows is doing quite well in the marketplace...hehe).... Make sense? [==Peter==] >I normally don't editorialize, but I can't help note that you sure want a >lot for something that's free. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Brian I understand what you are saying, Peter, and I'm quite certain Microsoft is listening. Your complaint about wanting more sample code and better documentation with the sample code has been raised before at various Microsoft conferences and MVP summits (along with some other complaints regarding better navigation and the elimination of dead links). I tend to look at it from the "the glass is half-full" perspective. It wasn't too many years ago that the only access to the MSDN library was through a subscription. I remember it was a big deal when this was released into the public domain. Moreover in recent years, I've noticed a vast improvement in both the quality and the volume of the MSDN library, including sample code that is often coded three times: VB.NET, C# and C++. I can only imagine that this compilation of material must take hundreds of writers, reviewers and editors to put together.... all for free. This is indeed remarkable. Although the contribution of code snippets and "how-to" topics have greatly improved the library, and still remains exactly what you say... a reference library. It many aspects it complements other resources very nicely: textbooks, CodeProject and related sites, newgroups etc. > If you do a google search for SAPI you will find info on how to download new and old SDK's with SAPI in it. But very little on how > to use it. A couple of Google clicks took me to http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms720151.aspx which immediately took me through a tutorial comprised of how to setup up SAPI, and 7 sample applications. I also see three additional tutorials in the following section. And, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms717038.aspx has 16 white papers on the subject. I went to CodeProject and searched for SAPI, and got 27 hits, many of which appear relevant on cursory inspection. Granted, I'm not a SAPI specialist, but this looks like a fairly rich area of material right here. I do note that you are looking specifically for .NET managed code. SAPI is essentially a COM interface, so it's not surprising that many of the examples (but not all) are unmanaged code. But COM plays very nicely with .NET code. It's really just an Interop exercise isn't it? > MSDN is a great REFERENCE, but is not a very good source of HOW-TO. Using my analogy from my other post, I sometimes look at MSDN > as being given access to a Pep Boys stock and being expected to be able to build a car simply by first finding the parts needed, > without even knowing what they are called or exaclty how they are organized, and with lots of similar looking parts, or parts with > the same name that don't fit (different version). That's probably not a bad analogy. I wouldn't try to build a car from reading a parts book either. I'd take a course or two. I would attend lectures. I would talk to other people who have already built a car. Best of luck with your SAPI project. Sounds like an interesting area. Brian Thanx Brian, the links are very helpful too! :) Just to be really clear, I'm pretty much blown away that MS gives away the EXPRESS languages, even though I see how doing so also benefits them. They are amazing languages, and I absolutely love doing managed object-oriented programming in C++. Taking the 'garbage collecting' to the outer level solved so many problems (figuring out when memory was no longer needed made it very difficult to figure out when one can delete something, and more importantly, removed most memory leaks). In fact, there are situations where this is almost required (my favorite example is sharing textures amongst different things, like walls and characters and items, in on-line RPG's - how does any one object type know when the texure is no longer needed and just wasting space? Managed code solves this problem!). My only real complaint might be that in many cases when the language was upgraded my old code didn't work. But this is getting much better. Going from unmanaged to manage was tough, but not that bad. Going from 2005 manage to 2008 managed (beta 2) required ZERO changes, it worked the first time! It has been interesting (so far) to see how code development has changed over the years, and likely will keep changing. I predict the day will come we don't 'write' code, we 'speak' design! Stay tuned... :) [==Peter==] >I understand what you are saying, Peter, and I'm quite certain Microsoft is >listening. Your complaint about wanting more sample code and better [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Brian > Thanx Brian, the links are very helpful too! :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > on-line RPG's - how does any one object type know when the texure is no > longer needed and just wasting space? Managed code solves this problem!). Actually, managed code does nothing for this problem (if I'm understanding it right), because the garbage collector is lazy (waits until there is a shortage of memory) and also doesn't track GPU memory. So as long as you have free main memory, the GC won't run, the texture finalizers won't run, and GPU allocations can be failing continually. And naively extending GC to the GPU won't help, because: (1) It's very expensive, because you have to trace references from main memory to graphics textures... which means transferring a lot of data across the bus and forces CPU/GPU synchronization (busy waits) (2) It's bursty. For realtime graphics you want each frame to have deterministic (at least upper bounded) render cost, even if the average cost is a little higher as a result. The best you could hope for would be to do a mark-and-sweep algorithm on each frame as its drawn -- if no sprite in that frame needed a texture it's unused... but that's way too aggressive, textures representing something just behind you or muzzle flash or something like that are going to be needed soon, and needed fast (you really want to lag the game when someone starts shooting at the player?). > How in hell was I suppose to figure that out using MSDN? MSDN is organized > like a dictionary : you have to know the NAME of what you are looking up to > find it! Thus, it is an EXCELLENT REFERENCE, and a terrible place to LEARN > about the possibilities. MSDN has the reference, some introductory articles and tutorials, but if you actually wanted to learn something, you had to get a book (from MS Press, Wrox, Addison Wesley etc.). It's no consolation if you expected otherwise, but it has always been that way. I don't see that MS has plans to change that. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.