Inexpensive Charting Library

RaviBee

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

It's only $99,

Plus $499 for the redist license. :( /ravi

My new year's resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Music | Articles | Freeware | Trips ravib(at)ravib(dot)com

Ryan Roberts

Nishant Sivakumar wrote:

The bad side is that this would add a dependency on the .NET framework.

You might as well ask to John to start wearing lacey panties.

Ryan

"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette

realJSOP

By the way, I downloaded and compiled the C++ demo code. The first thing that impressed me about the library is that it compiled clean (not even a single warning) under VS2005. The second thing that impressed me was that the charts are all flawless. Lastly, the sheer NUMBER of available charts is simply astounding. All that for just $99 (per language). And in case anyone is curious, I don't know if it comes with source code, and frankly I don't care. If it is easily implemented and the support is there, who needs the source? I just want to make graphs. (Oh yeah, the redistribution license is royalty free for the DLL.) Now, does anyone have any experience with this library? I'm on the verge of buying it.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

realJSOP

Wrong, bucko. It's royalty-free when you include the DLL with a desktop app.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Mike Gaskey

Ryan Roberts wrote:

You might as well ask to John to start wearing lacey panties.

now that was funny

Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Vincent Reynolds: My opposition is as enlightened as your support, jackass. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.

realJSOP

Yeah, I saw it - not sufficient. I want anti-aliased lines without having to turn myself inside out (or having to require an external library like OpenGL).

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

RaviBee

Their Licensing Faq[^] seems to indicate otherwise. /ravi

My new year's resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Music | Articles | Freeware | Trips ravib(at)ravib(dot)com

Rama Krishna Vavilala

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

. I'm not interested in burdening my application under the weight of .NET.

Have you really studied whether it is really a burden? IMHO: If you get a library use it, otherwise the .Net alternative is not a bad one.

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan

realJSOP

Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:

Have you really studied whether it is really a burden?

What part of "25mb runtime" doesn't scream "burden" at you? This thread is not intended to be a contest to see who can say the most good/bad things about .NET. I stated my requirement for a library written in un-managed code, intended for use in an MFC application. Nowhere in that requirement did I even HINT that a .NET library was an acceptable solution. Why are you people so hell-bent on trying to coerce me into using crap I don't want to use? Now that we have the pleasantries out of the freakin' way, can we get back to the issue at hand?

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Interesting. Looked at that way, TeeChart ($379 per dev for the ActiveX version, but no royalties) is actually cheaper unless you need two or more development licences. It sure looks pretty though.

Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.

Lost User

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

Why are you people so hell-bent of trying to coerce me into using crap I don't want to use?

Misery loves company? A successful .NET implementation somehow validates their choice to jump on the .NET bandwagon?

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

LOL! :laugh:

Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.

Nish Nishant

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

By the way, I downloaded and compiled the C++ demo code. The first thing that impressed me about the library is that it compiled clean (not even a single warning) under VS2005. The second thing that impressed me was that the charts are all flawless. Lastly, the sheer NUMBER of available charts is simply astounding. All that for just $99 (per language).

I downloaded and gave it a test run too. Looks really good. Compiles without warnings on both VC 6 and VC 2005 - which is an excellent achievement. And yeah, the graphs look good too - though till you start using it, it won't be fully obvious how easy it's to implement.

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

Now, does anyone have any experience with this library? I'm on the verge of buying it.

You may well be the first CPian to buy it :-)

Regards, Nish

Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)

wout de zeeuw

OpenGL is not a lib, so you don't have to install it. DirectX on the other hand...

Wout

wout de zeeuw

At least someone got the point :rolleyes:

Wout

realJSOP

Both require that the end-user have one or the other installed. Frequently being an end-user myself, I hate to be told I have to install this or that in order to use an app I just downloaded. Why doesn't the download include everything I need? Get my drift? I treat end-users like they're all just like me - lazy.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Vivek Rajan

It is $99 for a developer license + $499 for a redist license. We are talking $598.

realJSOP

The jury is still out on that. I think that's based on a web distribution, not on desktop apps. Like I said earlier, I sent emails, and I'm waiting on a response. The downside is that these people are in hong kong, and they're 13 hours BEHIND on time, so I won't have an answer until tomorrow.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Lost User

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

The downside is that these people are in hong kong, and they're 13 hours BEHIND on time, so I won't have an answer until tomorrow.

I like to think I understand (and when I don't try and work it out) the various time zones around. If I do understand it correctly, since your in Texas your on Central Time (GMT -6) though for the next couple of weeks it's Central Daylight Time (GMT -5). Hong Kong in (GMT +8), so they are in fact 13 hours ahead or 11 hours behind depending on your view point. Though either way the answer won't arrive until tommorow. Am I even close? Next unrelated wuestion is Mountain Time. Where the hell is that? If I'm not mistaken the following are correct though far from complete - Eastern Time (GMT -5) - Massachussets, New York and the rest of the East Coast. Central Time (GMT -6) - Texas, Illonois and other places. Mountain Time (GMT -7) - ??? Pacific Time (GMT -8) California and the rest of the West Coast. Arizona Time (GMT -?) Different cause they don't have Daylight Savings.

Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004

realJSOP

Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe - so they'll get my emails yesterday instead of tomorrow... :)

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001