WTL going open source ???
-
The Microsoft representative inteviewed in the article says they are investigating releasing WTL under a shared source licence, which could mean "look but don't touch" or "non-commercial use only" style restricted source licence. In any case the article headline is misleading. Shared source isn't Open Source.
markkuk wrote: The Microsoft representative inteviewed in the article says they are investigating releasing WTL under a shared source licence, which could mean "look but don't touch" or "non-commercial use only" style restricted source licence. In any case the article headline is misleading. Shared source isn't Open Source. Huh? Aren't WTL sources already available? What changes, then? :confused: My latest article: GBVB - Converting VB.NET code to C#
-
WTL is one of those niche libraries that falls between the legacy MFC code that lots of us maintain and the new .NET framework. I primarly write database related applications so for me a move to WTL for anything other than quick apps would seem like a sideways step. There isn't much advantage to using WTL in updating legacy MFC based apps. Any new apps that I write really need to be targetting the .NET framework as that is where Microsoft are moving. If I am to take advantage of the new .NET class libraries, then I'm probably better off using C# rather than C++. Whilst WTL provides a good way of writing Win32 applications, I'd rather leverage my years of experience with MFC than change over for Win32 apps. With .NET, I know I'm going to have to learn something new as MFC isn't going to be in the 'brave new world'. I might as well use C# as it is the only language that has been designed especially for .NET Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
The interesting thing about WTL is that it is particularly well suited for the "niche" market I'm working on: Windows CE (Pocket PC 2002 and the Smartphone soon). Interestingly, MFC is not supported in the Smartphone platform so, if you want an application framework for C++ that's truly portable and close to the metal, WTL is the way to go. The .NET CF is not really what I have in mind for my purposes...
-
According to this[^] article , WTL an ATL c++ class approach to GUI development (a very simplistic explanation for the guys that don't what the hell is this *thing*) , is considering moving WTL to the Open Souce domain :eek: For WTL CPians lovers out there , I could be good news since it could improve a lot the features of WTL, making it a much better and valid alternative to old and trusty MFC development. Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
Joao Vaz wrote: MS is considering moving WTL to the Open Source domain I don't buy this. Why should MS care about something they have given source code for ? MS is betting on something they control. WTL is a no bet. Beware of those MS-related distractions. MS is only interested on money and control. Technical things are just PR for the masses. MS is considering moving WTL to the Open sausage domain. :wtf: I buy that one instead. :laugh:
-
The Microsoft representative inteviewed in the article says they are investigating releasing WTL under a shared source licence, which could mean "look but don't touch" or "non-commercial use only" style restricted source licence. In any case the article headline is misleading. Shared source isn't Open Source.
markkuk wrote: "look but don't touch" or "non-commercial use only" style restricted source licence. Yuck . Stupid license . No Commercial ??? That doesn't make sense ... They are some clients that are using for small and medium comercial projects , so a no-comercial license will be a no-no kind of stuff for this kind of clients ... Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
-
The interesting thing about WTL is that it is particularly well suited for the "niche" market I'm working on: Windows CE (Pocket PC 2002 and the Smartphone soon). Interestingly, MFC is not supported in the Smartphone platform so, if you want an application framework for C++ that's truly portable and close to the metal, WTL is the way to go. The .NET CF is not really what I have in mind for my purposes...
João Paulo Figueira wrote: The .NET CF is not really what I have in mind for my purposes... Why not ? You don't like the concept of managed apps for the mobile market ? Java is winning a lot of ground here with JME and java games , so why not a .NET CF ? Faster TTM (Time to market) and easier to program ... Note here that I'm a C++ fan and I prefer it to any managed language as c# ... Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
-
Joao Vaz wrote: MS is considering moving WTL to the Open Source domain I don't buy this. Why should MS care about something they have given source code for ? MS is betting on something they control. WTL is a no bet. Beware of those MS-related distractions. MS is only interested on money and control. Technical things are just PR for the masses. MS is considering moving WTL to the Open sausage domain. :wtf: I buy that one instead. :laugh:
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: MS is betting on something they control. WTL is a no bet. Unfortunately it isn't ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: MS is only interested on money and control. Technical things are just PR for the masses. Yup. but at least they were friendly on the upgrade cost to VS 2003 , only $29 e some cents . Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: MS is considering moving WTL to the Open sausage domain. LOL . That was funny :-) Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
-
João Paulo Figueira wrote: The .NET CF is not really what I have in mind for my purposes... Why not ? You don't like the concept of managed apps for the mobile market ? Java is winning a lot of ground here with JME and java games , so why not a .NET CF ? Faster TTM (Time to market) and easier to program ... Note here that I'm a C++ fan and I prefer it to any managed language as c# ... Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
I may be a little biased ;), but .NET CF with the current devices means two words to me: fat and slow. Sure, better time to market. But better app response time? My feeling is that this is going to be primarily for MIS development, not for packaged software, at least for the time being.
-
According to this[^] article , WTL an ATL c++ class approach to GUI development (a very simplistic explanation for the guys that don't what the hell is this *thing*) , is considering moving WTL to the Open Souce domain :eek: For WTL CPians lovers out there , I could be good news since it could improve a lot the features of WTL, making it a much better and valid alternative to old and trusty MFC development. Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
I think it's cool, even though it probably wouldn't have much effect on the rate at which WTL develops. Right now, any good suggestions and bug fixes from the mailing lists are pretty quickly added to the distribution. Although, making it open source might relieve Nenad of maintainership responsibility, and he does need a break :-) What's the difference between a C++ programmer and God? God knows he's not a C++ programmer : anon
-
I may be a little biased ;), but .NET CF with the current devices means two words to me: fat and slow. Sure, better time to market. But better app response time? My feeling is that this is going to be primarily for MIS development, not for packaged software, at least for the time being.
João Paulo Figueira wrote: but .NET CF with the current devices means two words to me: fat and slow. So, you tested it right ? Or is a hunch on your part ? Bias aside , I'm a firm believer that any good development for the mobile device should be done in c++ , but this is just me . Now programming java games it's a different story , it should be a different and cool thing to do in our field (this coming from a guy that is studying game mathematics and directx programming just for fun) ... Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
-
I think it's cool, even though it probably wouldn't have much effect on the rate at which WTL develops. Right now, any good suggestions and bug fixes from the mailing lists are pretty quickly added to the distribution. Although, making it open source might relieve Nenad of maintainership responsibility, and he does need a break :-) What's the difference between a C++ programmer and God? God knows he's not a C++ programmer : anon
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Although, making it open source might relieve Nenad of maintainership responsibility, and he does need a break Nenad despite being a restless guy , is human and for sure needs a refreshing wtl break :~ Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: MS is betting on something they control. WTL is a no bet. Unfortunately it isn't ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: MS is only interested on money and control. Technical things are just PR for the masses. Yup. but at least they were friendly on the upgrade cost to VS 2003 , only $29 e some cents . Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: MS is considering moving WTL to the Open sausage domain. LOL . That was funny :-) Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
Joao Vaz wrote: but at least they were friendly on the upgrade cost to VS 2003 , only $29 e some cents It should be 100% free. It's only a service pack. The idea of MS giving away products for free is a lure. It's because they are evangelizing java developers, read : killing the competition. That's also what they are doing with the x-box. I don't like the idea of .NET being a patented technology, and a technology which is on the side of Microsoft, unlike MFC/WTL/... MS can break the API at any moment and force us to adapt (that's what they are doing for instance with the broken VS.NET 2003 project file formats).
-
Joao Vaz wrote: but at least they were friendly on the upgrade cost to VS 2003 , only $29 e some cents It should be 100% free. It's only a service pack. The idea of MS giving away products for free is a lure. It's because they are evangelizing java developers, read : killing the competition. That's also what they are doing with the x-box. I don't like the idea of .NET being a patented technology, and a technology which is on the side of Microsoft, unlike MFC/WTL/... MS can break the API at any moment and force us to adapt (that's what they are doing for instance with the broken VS.NET 2003 project file formats).
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: It should be 100% free. It's only a service pack. Well from a purist view, it isn't only a service pack ,new enhancements of the net framework 1.1 , better mc++ support (read RAD mc++) , merged the cf net framework support and the best of all IMHO a very standard compliant c++ compiler and some other changes/integration ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: It's because they are evangelizing java developers Visual J# being the shameless part of it ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I don't like the idea of .NET being a patented technology This could break the Mono project (which deserves my sympathy) into pieces , even they insist that Microsoft can't do it , I'm not so sure of this ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: break the API at any moment and force us to adapt (that's what they are doing for instance with the broken VS.NET 2003 project file formats). It's a shame , what's rest of the retro-compatibility philosophy and protecting the clients investment ??? Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: It should be 100% free. It's only a service pack. Well from a purist view, it isn't only a service pack ,new enhancements of the net framework 1.1 , better mc++ support (read RAD mc++) , merged the cf net framework support and the best of all IMHO a very standard compliant c++ compiler and some other changes/integration ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: It's because they are evangelizing java developers Visual J# being the shameless part of it ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I don't like the idea of .NET being a patented technology This could break the Mono project (which deserves my sympathy) into pieces , even they insist that Microsoft can't do it , I'm not so sure of this ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: break the API at any moment and force us to adapt (that's what they are doing for instance with the broken VS.NET 2003 project file formats). It's a shame , what's rest of the retro-compatibility philosophy and protecting the clients investment ??? Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
Joao Vaz wrote: Well from a purist view, it isn't only a service pack ,new enhancements of the net framework 1.1 , better mc++ support (read RAD mc++) , merged the cf net framework support and the best of all IMHO a very standard compliant c++ compiler and some other changes/integration ... What counts is what the product enables to do. I can't see here anything else than minor enhancements. Besides that, MS has released what they haven't been able to release with VS.NET 2002 just because they decided to release the product in Feb 2002. If you have VS.NET 2002, then VS.NET 2003 is a service pack. If you don't have VS.NET 2002 yet, then VS.NET 2003 is a full fledged product. But then you pay the price for it, not 29$. Joao Vaz wrote: best of all IMHO a very standard compliant c++ compiler Yes and no. No, because VC++7.x has more proprietary tags than ever. (for instance ATL attributes within cpp classes). In my former company, our code was cross-compiled and, as such, porting our code VC++7.x is not an option at all. But then, MS is retiring their older products. Joao Vaz wrote: what's rest of the retro-compatibility philosophy and protecting the clients investment ??? The company I work for has most of their customers using NT OSes. I don't know what .NET apps could do for them, especially when you know that, for instance, ASP.NET doesn't work on NT OSes. That brings us to the real point : Microsoft is breeding software technologies to make customers buy hardware, and then software again, etc. That's the main point about Microsoft's market dominance and how they are doing business. That's why I find so much ironical your point about WTL. I wonder why Microsoft should give a flying fuck about WTL.
-
Joao Vaz wrote: Well from a purist view, it isn't only a service pack ,new enhancements of the net framework 1.1 , better mc++ support (read RAD mc++) , merged the cf net framework support and the best of all IMHO a very standard compliant c++ compiler and some other changes/integration ... What counts is what the product enables to do. I can't see here anything else than minor enhancements. Besides that, MS has released what they haven't been able to release with VS.NET 2002 just because they decided to release the product in Feb 2002. If you have VS.NET 2002, then VS.NET 2003 is a service pack. If you don't have VS.NET 2002 yet, then VS.NET 2003 is a full fledged product. But then you pay the price for it, not 29$. Joao Vaz wrote: best of all IMHO a very standard compliant c++ compiler Yes and no. No, because VC++7.x has more proprietary tags than ever. (for instance ATL attributes within cpp classes). In my former company, our code was cross-compiled and, as such, porting our code VC++7.x is not an option at all. But then, MS is retiring their older products. Joao Vaz wrote: what's rest of the retro-compatibility philosophy and protecting the clients investment ??? The company I work for has most of their customers using NT OSes. I don't know what .NET apps could do for them, especially when you know that, for instance, ASP.NET doesn't work on NT OSes. That brings us to the real point : Microsoft is breeding software technologies to make customers buy hardware, and then software again, etc. That's the main point about Microsoft's market dominance and how they are doing business. That's why I find so much ironical your point about WTL. I wonder why Microsoft should give a flying fuck about WTL.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: because VC++7.x has more proprietary tags than ever. (for instance ATL attributes within cpp classes). Yes it's true , but I was talking only in terms of ANSI/ISO C++ compliance like supporting partial template specialization and other similar templates issues ... now it can compile cleanly for instance Boost and Loki libraries without the need for hacks ... Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I don't know what .NET apps could do for them, especially when you know that, for instance, ASP.NET doesn't work on NT OSes. :confused: It doesn't work on NT SP 6 ??? At least the VS 2002 supports it . Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: That's why I find so much ironical your point about WTL. Yes , it's a ironical view as Microsoft is concerned , but WTL was always a pet project of some microsoft guys , of course now it's the only one project's man, Nenad , but since isn't supported and never was in the 1st place , why don't release it to the world ? They're some guys that would appreciate it and Microsoft could earn some sympathy points from some hardcore guys (oh well , to dream is nice , the reality is completely a different beast ...) Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
-
The Microsoft representative inteviewed in the article says they are investigating releasing WTL under a shared source licence, which could mean "look but don't touch" or "non-commercial use only" style restricted source licence. In any case the article headline is misleading. Shared source isn't Open Source.
There are a lot of "shared source" licenses by Microsoft at this point. See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx[^]. There's nothing that indicates a shared source license for WTL would mean "'look but don't touch' or 'non-commercial use only'". Shared source may not be open source, but their respective licenses can be identical. The differences are political, not necessarily technical or legal. And personally, I prefer the politics of shared source over open source. After all, I live in a capitalistic society. William E. Kempf
-
Joao Vaz wrote: but at least they were friendly on the upgrade cost to VS 2003 , only $29 e some cents It should be 100% free. It's only a service pack. The idea of MS giving away products for free is a lure. It's because they are evangelizing java developers, read : killing the competition. That's also what they are doing with the x-box. I don't like the idea of .NET being a patented technology, and a technology which is on the side of Microsoft, unlike MFC/WTL/... MS can break the API at any moment and force us to adapt (that's what they are doing for instance with the broken VS.NET 2003 project file formats).
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: It should be 100% free. It's only a service pack. Uhmm... right. The C++ compiler alone has undergone enough development to discount this. IMO, charging only $29, which barely covers the shipping/handling and CD costs, is a gift from MS, which we should be gratefully giving thanks for. Service Pack my @$$. Sheesh! Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I don't like the idea of .NET being a patented technology, and a technology which is on the side of Microsoft, unlike MFC/WTL/... MS can break the API at any moment and force us to adapt (that's what they are doing for instance with the broken VS.NET 2003 project file formats). 'Scuse me?!?!! Java is owned, wholly, by Sun. They can do what they want with it, and you've got no recourse against them. .NET, on the other hand, has been standardized by the ECMA and is slated to be standardized by the ISO as well. (Sun has yanked Java from standardization at least twice, and won't ever go down that road again.) MS does hold some patents and proprietary libraries, but so what? That's what a capatilistic market is all about. They can't destroy standards, no matter what chicken little thinks. If you don't like MS, so be it. I won't try and change your mind. They have exhibited enough business tactics to deserve some of that. But if you're going to spread FUD, at least try to get your facts straight. William E. Kempf
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: It should be 100% free. It's only a service pack. Uhmm... right. The C++ compiler alone has undergone enough development to discount this. IMO, charging only $29, which barely covers the shipping/handling and CD costs, is a gift from MS, which we should be gratefully giving thanks for. Service Pack my @$$. Sheesh! Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I don't like the idea of .NET being a patented technology, and a technology which is on the side of Microsoft, unlike MFC/WTL/... MS can break the API at any moment and force us to adapt (that's what they are doing for instance with the broken VS.NET 2003 project file formats). 'Scuse me?!?!! Java is owned, wholly, by Sun. They can do what they want with it, and you've got no recourse against them. .NET, on the other hand, has been standardized by the ECMA and is slated to be standardized by the ISO as well. (Sun has yanked Java from standardization at least twice, and won't ever go down that road again.) MS does hold some patents and proprietary libraries, but so what? That's what a capatilistic market is all about. They can't destroy standards, no matter what chicken little thinks. If you don't like MS, so be it. I won't try and change your mind. They have exhibited enough business tactics to deserve some of that. But if you're going to spread FUD, at least try to get your facts straight. William E. Kempf
William E. Kempf wrote: They (MS) can't destroy standards, no matter what chicken little thinks. This sums up your post. I can't disagree more with this. MS has been destroying others standards while imposing their own standards, for two decades. My company is doing business with MS Office addins, so that would be silly to be anti-MS. I am touchy with the obsolescence of so-called standards.
-
William E. Kempf wrote: They (MS) can't destroy standards, no matter what chicken little thinks. This sums up your post. I can't disagree more with this. MS has been destroying others standards while imposing their own standards, for two decades. My company is doing business with MS Office addins, so that would be silly to be anti-MS. I am touchy with the obsolescence of so-called standards.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: This sums up your post. I can't disagree more with this. MS has been destroying others standards while imposing their own standards, for two decades. 1) Name a single standard they've destroyed. 2) AFAIK, this is the first standard MS has championed. And they aren't "imposing" it on anyone. William E. Kempf
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: This sums up your post. I can't disagree more with this. MS has been destroying others standards while imposing their own standards, for two decades. 1) Name a single standard they've destroyed. 2) AFAIK, this is the first standard MS has championed. And they aren't "imposing" it on anyone. William E. Kempf
William E. Kempf wrote: 1) Name a single standard they've destroyed HTML. If you have been developing web pages expected to work on Netscape and Internet Explorer, you probably know. The fact that it isn't obvious to you means you have never developed serious web pages. William E. Kempf wrote: 2) AFAIK, this is the first standard MS has championed. And they aren't "imposing" it on anyone. Whatever you are talking about, and I suspect you are talking about .NET here, I am quite surprised you are pretending that MS is not imposing their stuff, by the way erasing two decades of anti-competitive history. Man there is no discussing !
-
William E. Kempf wrote: 1) Name a single standard they've destroyed HTML. If you have been developing web pages expected to work on Netscape and Internet Explorer, you probably know. The fact that it isn't obvious to you means you have never developed serious web pages. William E. Kempf wrote: 2) AFAIK, this is the first standard MS has championed. And they aren't "imposing" it on anyone. Whatever you are talking about, and I suspect you are talking about .NET here, I am quite surprised you are pretending that MS is not imposing their stuff, by the way erasing two decades of anti-competitive history. Man there is no discussing !
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: William E. Kempf wrote: 1) Name a single standard they've destroyed HTML. Nope. The HTML standard still exists, and is still adhered to by *MANY* (including MS). Definately not destroyed by MS. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: If you have been developing web pages expected to work on Netscape and Internet Explorer, you probably know. Getting pages to work as expected between *ANY* two browsers is an art form. However, the best way to do so is to stick to the standards, so you're arguing against yourself here. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: The fact that it isn't obvious to you means you have never developed serious web pages. Quite incorrect. I've done more than my share of serious web development. I hate it, but I'm not clueless of the issues. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: Man there is no discussing ! Discuss all you want, but expect to be called on things you get wrong, or on things that are pure FUD. William E. Kempf