| Subject: |
Re: FoxPro 8.0 Capacities |
| Author: |
"Leland F. Jackson, CPA" |
| Posted: |
2003/04/30 19:26:00 |
|
|
|
|
Hi Derek,
Thanks for the lesson in C/C++. I have a son-in-law working for the =
most pretegious gaming company in California. He said that once he has =
that experience on his resume, he would be able to go to work anywhere =
in the country. He and my Daughter will be return to Texas in about =
another year. They plan to move to Dallas. Anyway, he said that the =
companies he worked for does not allow C++ period. Its to slow. Of =
course there nothing faster than assembler, if you can get it to run. =
Its a little difficult to degug from what I've heard.
I can see why spliting Microsoft's application and program development =
arm from its O/S would be such a nightmare, since they all share the =
same libraries/classes. After all, It you made Microsoft divest itself =
from IE, wouldn't Microsoft need to also give over the same libraries =
and classes that are key to the O/S?
I suppose anyone could write an application from scratch without going =
the C++ route. However, could you imagine needing to write your own =
classes/libraries. It could take a couple of years just to write the =
foundation classes to an application before you ever even got around to =
writing the first line of the app.
Of course Linux has some of these same issues. The KDE destop is much =
more mature than gnome. Since Linux is open, one could use the KDE =
classes/libraries to develop an application. I read an article a couple =
of years ago about whether it would be best to build an application =
using KDE or Gnome. At that time the Auther said that it could be =
necessary to spend a couple of year on the foundation to your app before =
you even begin the app itself, if you went the Gnome route. However, =
Gnome was technically more corect that KDE. Hopefully Gnome has mature =
since I read the article.
Would it be possible to port Visual FoxPro to Linux/Unix if the source =
code were made available, and what difficulties would you expect to =
encounter?
LelandJ
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Derek J. Kalweit=20
To: profox /AT/ leafe D.O.T com=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 7:13 PM
Subject: RE: FoxPro 8.0 Capacities
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leland F. Jackson, CPA [mailto:smvfp@mail.smvfp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 7:14 PM
> code. C is the base language and C++ add functionality to C=20
> through foundation classes which are built from C code. The=20
> class libraries come with objects that are little more that =20
> shapes and properties that allow a programmer to quickly=20
> assemble programs of windows, forms, dialog, etc. =20
Not really. Straight C does not support classes, and therefore has =
very weak, if any OOP abilities.
> Microsoft's operating system itself is written in C. The=20
Depends on what part of the OS. I'm sure some is probably written in =
raw assembly language, others parts in C, and I'm sure some is written =
in C++, as I've seen source file names in error messages and such(or =
they just named their files *.cpp for some other reason).
> windows foundation classes are used to build Window O/S=20
> dialogs, windows, forms, etc.=20
The Windows API is used for this. There are foundational classes =
written in C++ that abstract this, such as MFC, but nothing directly in =
the C/C++ language.
> Also, other programs like VB,=20
> Office, IE, and outlook express use the same foundation=20
> classes which gives everything a consistent look and feel.
All Windows applications, at some point, are written to the Windows =
API. VFP took the minimalistic approach, so I've observed and been told, =
of just implementing the outer window and a couple inner ones, and =
creating their own controls instead of re-using those already in the =
Windows API. This is what constitutes for the slowness of rich VFP =
GUI's.
> Although C++ makes it easy to build application, it carries a=20
> lot of overhead. At one time, C++ was not used because it=20
> was simply to slow. C++ has come to the front of=20
> programming, because of the technological advances in the=20
> Microprocessor and low cost of memory and disk space, which=20
> is exponentially greater today than it was only a few years=20
The difference between C and C++ code is all in the algorithms used, =
and the quality of the assembly code created by the compiler. C++ wasn't =
accepted with open arms, as many procedural programmers are/were scared =
of OOP.
> FoxPro is still based on its own C/C++ libraries. The Visual=20
> FoxPro database engine, vfp.exe, and the runtime are written in C.
Didn't Mike just say that VFP was written, at least partially, in C++? =
I swear I read a message a couple hours ago where he stated that quite =
clearly......
> Mose games are written in pure C, because C++ object oriented=20
> code is just to slow. The C code must work with graphic to=20
> make the game come to life and it must be very fast. There=20
Many games are written in C++, as OOP makes game creation far easier. =
Graphics routines are often written in C and assembly for speed reasons.
> is nothing faster that C and about every new language is=20
> written in it like Ruby, etc, because it the best we have.
Assembly can be faster than C. C/C++ both simply create assembly =
language, hence their speed.
--=20
Derek
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Leland F. Jackson, CPA |
|
|
|
