No idea where to start with this. A javascript "application" is not the same as a "web server" which responds to requests and which might use javascript. So at least from your description it is not clear that you know what it is. If it is a web server then, of course, the first step is that you either must set up a web server or have something that will act as a container (proxy) to run it as though it was in a web server. If it is an application instead then it has nothing to do with a browser. A 'index.html' suggests a web application. Hard to say how you might run this but I know that can be used in IIS with the appropriate AppPool (and other stuff set up). Then IIS is the web server. With my very limited experience node.js might be set up in a similar way. There are other ways this can be setup. Regardless though it likely requires additional steps besides just identifying the container. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Other than the above your company has a SEVERE problem with documentation. This is not something that you should be guessing about. What if your coworker just left the company (fired, quit, died) then what? Production setups should ALWAYS be documented. Development setups should be documented in such a way that it does not require another developer working full time just to get a new developer up and running. Detail helps but it not required.

After a test with loaded (I loaded them from a hdd-drive) 3000x3000 images (Same Datatype) it worked fast and without problems. Too much changes

If you start "locking up" the device, then the app needs to be able to make async calls and perform the associated error handling. Otherwise, it "freezes". "Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I

I'm glad it's working now. Sorry I only just got the chance to look at this. Advanced TypeScript Programming Projects

If this is truly C# code, mightn't you be better served posting it in the C# forum? "One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson "Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons "You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles

Fine. "In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto

No, you cannot. If you need a flexible size structure, the idiomatic solution is to add a zero size array at the end of the structure. Then, presumably, one of the fixed length fields tells you the size of the variable part. Something like this: struct MyStruct { int small_or_big; int variable_part[0]; //or int variable_part[] if you want to conform to C90 }; struct MyStruct *ptr; if (ptr->small_or_big == BIG_STRUCT) { ptr->variable_part[999] = some_value; //we know that variable part size is 1000 //... } When you allocate the structure you have to account for the variable part: //... ptr_small = malloc(sizeof(MyStruct) + SIZE_OF_SMALL_PART); ptr_small->big_or_small = SMALL_STRUCT; ptr_big = malloc (sizeof(MyStruct) + SIZE_OF_BIG_PART); ptr_big->big_or_small = BIG_STRUCT; Mircea

More than you apparently; HTC is using C++. It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food

arnold_w wrote: 5. Anything else I need to be aware of? poor you. your only choice is win32. I suggest setting up a virtual machine with the target OS (if it's possible) on which you can do your work (install VS2005... ) CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair

That's a lot of magic :D If prefer to write my own. Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

Sorry, that is something I have never seen before. To be honest I think you are in danger of making things far more difficult than you need. The original spec I suggested where you can generate (or not) the macro that includes a runtime check, is the simplest way of doing it.

So you have to it in place. Forgot the printf signature and write a function to output a string, a character at time. Then write a function to output properly a floating point number (that would be more difficult, but it depends on your requirements) and combine the two function in order to obtain the expected result. "In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto

Wow, that's impressive! I'm one layer above, though, so I'm only logging whether it's a read/write and the address and number of registers. I don't log the reply packets, but if I don't get a reply packet then it gets logged as a critical error.

Hi, here are my suggestions: 1. use a single BackGroundWorker per COM port; use its progress reporting facility to report displayable results. 2. Use synchronous read operations, thus avoiding the tricky DataReceived event. If you are lucky and the peripheral reports text messages ending on some specific terminator, use ReadLine(); when necessary, adjust the NewLine property to equal that terminator. If not, just use Read and have the BGW discover the beginning and end of every message. 3. For the UI use the simplest List oriented Control that satisfies your interactive requirements; a ListView is good, however I prefer a ListBox. 4. Define a little class holding the raw data of one displayable result. That is one object, no more expensive than the array a ListView would need. Instances of this class, not strings, are to be added to the ListBox Items collection. 5. Make the ListBox ownerdrawn, giving it a fixed ItemHeight, and an appropriate DrawItem handler that takes care of horizontal positioning, coloring, and whatever fancy styling you may want. That's it; and it is bound to be simpler than the code you probably are experementing with right now... :) Luc Pattyn [My Articles] If you can't find it on YouTube try TikTok...

I'm hoping to be able to use the function like this: queueTaskCpp([](uint8_t* data, uint16_t dataSizeBytes) { // My function implementation in PURE C (no C++) goes here... }, NULL, 0); I would assume the above function implementation would become static, right? God forbid if the function gets implemented on the stack, obviously that would mean I can't use this concept at all since the function implementation on the stack will most likely be corrupt when it's time to execute the queued function. I'm not planning to use any classes or object orientedness, I'm only using C++ to be able to pass anonymous functions like this.

You need to add the following line to myDummyFile.cpp: #include "myDummyFile.h" Otherwise the compiler will generate a decorated* name for myDummyFunction, because the source file is C++ not C. *In C++ external names have additional characters so the linker will not match what is called from your main file.

Note that C arrays do not include length information! So unless your function Function(uint8_t*) somehow knows how many elements there are, you'd also have to pass the number of elements as a separate parameter! And even if it does know how many elements to expect, there's always a chance someone calls it accidentally with a different number of elements. The class std::vector behaves like an array, but internally it does store the array length which makes the code examples above feasible. You could of course write a C++ wrapper that calls a C function internally, like this: void Function(uint8_t* values, unsigned long int size); //normal C function implemented elsewhere void Function(const std::vector& values) { Function(values.data(), values.size()); } int main() { Function({1, 2, 3}); return 0; } Otherwise, you'd have to think of another way to pass the element number reliably. GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)

arnold_w wrote: without access to the Internet If you consider the Internet to be things outside of your PC then the answer is Yes. However, even if you keep everything on your PC, you will need the PC to host a web server but that can be local to the PC only. So the PC can be stand-alone and not connected to the Internet. This is actually common practice - when you write a web application, you run it on a locally hosted web server and only when all testing has been completed you would publish it to an intranet or extranet web server.

Turns out I was wrong, in Excel 2013 and onwards it's possible to enable "Script Lap" as an add-in: Office Scripts vs Excel VBA (Everything you need to know) - YouTube[^]. Thanks for your suggestion, I will upgrade my Excel and give it a try.

Happy to help! :) The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.