the whole header file /CPP file split-up is fundamental to OOD. One of the main objectives (other than reusability) of OOD is to separate the data from the interface; with C++ this is both physical (the file splits) and implemented (the class). The fact that C# doesn't support this (and in doing so saying.. eh.. to hell with OOD, lets go back to spaghetti) is just another reason why C# (and Java for that matter .. what real purpose does it serve) should be destroyed, and never mentioned again.

I was currently reading an article in my linux mag about the wonderful uses of the assert function. I personally use this function and variations of it a lot. My question arises when I caught a side bar of the article about some preprocessor macros. The sidebar explains how assert is so great because of the __LINE__ and __FILE__ macros. However it also explains two useful macros that are available under the GNU C compiler. __FUNCTION__ and __PRETTY_FUNCTION__. The first being for C compilers it returns the functions name. Since C++ mangles function names do to overloading the second returns the full function name (i.e. "void CMyClass::myfunc(int, double)" ). However these do not seem to be available under Microsoft's or Borland's compiler, and a long search through MSDN doesn't reveal anything similar. Is there a way to produce similar output with the MS compiler?

I don't know if you have solved this problem, but make sure that you compile all of the wxWindows library. I have never had that problem. ----- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses -----

with wxWindows this is not entirely true. I have ported several of my MFC apps to wxWindows with realitive ease. I would say at least a little over half of my code was as simple as changing "C"xxx to "wx"xxx. Most of the wxWindows library is structured after MFC; so most of the syntax is the same. The only problem you have, is if your code contains lot of OS specefic code or API calls. ----- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses -----

I would like some information on this as well. I remember when the MSI thingy came out there was a tool (I think from Microsoft) that let you create a installer from a Wizard. But the only thing I can find now is the SDK, wich as of right now I don't have the time to dive into and learn. ----- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses -----

I have been messing around with wxWindows. In my opinion its a great library. the syntax is very similar to MFC, so MFC coders will take to it right away. Best of all its.. FREE. Most of my MFC apps I have successfully converted to wxWindows, and with very little effort have compiled them under Win32, Mac, and Linux. It might be worth a try. http://www.wxwindows.org[^] ----- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses -----

Thank you very much for the help. Seeings as how I did not even know what a quadratic equation was before I started this little project. I just got a hold of the formula, and kinda winged it from there to come up with an answer. Thank you very much. ----- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses -----

Thank you for the insight. please excuse the casting and the float. If you notice the variables start with d because orginialy they were doubles. I changed to float for an output test. Other than that, it will ouput the correct answer? am I correct in assuming that? ----- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses -----

well said. I agree completly

Yes it is against the Geneva convention. But as a post below points out that they were not POW's yet. Again this is all technical, was X really that far from Y. I don't think I nessesarialy agree with what CNN said. If you get right down to the meat and potatos of it, we did show POWs on TV, however they took it one step further. Also let me remind you that the Military did not show POW's the American Media did. I don't agree with them being there. But none the less they are. As for the Weapons of Mass Destruction that I keep hearing is an American Lie to invade Iraq. If that is true I really don't understand why we are getting worried over the Iraq order to the Republican Guard to use Chemical weapons once American troops cross the line. seeings how those chemical weapons don't exist and all. ---------------------------------------------------- C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses ----------------------------------------------------

Umm.. just a slight interjection. Yes if you want to be technical we did show Iraqi prisioners on CNN. We DID NOT however show dead Iraqi soldiers bloody on the ground, will bullet holes in their head. BIG Difference! -------------------------------------------------------- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses --------------------------------------------------------

You have said that people need to be enlighten ( I don't know if that is a word. but I think I know what you mean) and able to analyze what they are being fed. I read the article from Michael Parenti, and I believe it to be bias to war opposition. Yes, there are some wrong reasons for going to war with Iraq. Oil being one of them. No doubt that higher up officials looked at oil as a benefit to going to war. But it is not a single reason. Nor do I believe it to be the ultimate reason. No matter how much our country may or may not want oil, I don't think we are willing to sacrafice our soldiers lives for it. Robert have you ever served in a Military Unit? Have you ever served your country? It seems that you are painting a picture of war hungry americans that are determined on taking over a country for its oil, and killing anything that gets in our way. This is not true. We are going out of our way (more so than most countries would) to protect non combatant lives. In Post war Iraq in fact the United States has plans to slowly release the control over the country back to its people. Just like we did in Afganistan. We will hold contracts on oil in Iraq after the war. Most likely.. who wouldn't? The French who are opposed to the war and think it is wrong, are allready complaining because they will not have any oil contracts in Iraq. It seems to me the French are more interested in the Oil than America. -------------------------------------------------------- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses --------------------------------------------------------

Anybody that knows me knows my math skills well umm.. suck.. so can somebody explain to me the difference. The first I came up with. the second is an example I took from a friend. What is the difference. The output is the same, but I need to know that my way (the first) correctly solves the equation. ---------------------------------------------- float dFirst; float dSecond; // My way dFirst = (-b + sc) / (2 * a); dSecond = (-b - sc) / (2*a); cout <<"First: " << (int)dFirst <

I can't agree with your whole statment. I have replaced the File/Edit/View menu a lot of times, and in some cases have removed the menu all together from my SDI apps. Where you talk about the "cool" GUI features I have seen almost is not all of those features implemented using MFC.. (Do you read MSJ? errr.. MSDN mag now). As far as seperating buisness logic from application logic. I don't belive this has much to do with the framework, but more of programming style. The way I design my apps, in most cases I design my classes and libraries and keep those logics very seperate, however there are instances were I will agree, I have had to change things to get my ideas to work withing the framework. IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses

LOL, Absolutly. But hey.. I'm human right? I didn't say anything was wrong with people that don't like MFC. I just wanted to know why. :rolleyes:

but isn't it true that most Microsoft apps use these same DLL's ?? So chances are if you dynamicly link to the Library .. the end user most likely has the release builds of the DLL's allready on their machine. -------------------------------------------------------- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses --------------------------------------------------------

first I shouldn't post anything here because this shouldn't be in The Lounge. But I will give my 2 cents anyways. I am an American Soldier. And I do support the war. Perhaps Bush does want the Oil. But there is a greater stake than oil, and it is Weapons of Mass Destruction. I guess that untill you acctualy lay in a foxhole and get training of what to do if a Nuclear or Chem/Bio attack happens, and you see what those weapons can do to somebody, then it isn't really important to you. The other day me and one of my Korean friends was watching CNN, and he asked me why we went to war with Iraq. At the time CNN was showing some Iraq people that had just been libirated, and they were smiling and hugging the soldiers over there, and I said that is what we are doing. We are freeing a people from a regime, and trying to make the world safer. IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses

I agree. It is important to know the limitations of the framework, as well as the Win32 API; because you are right. It a lot of instances MFC is just a thin wrapper for an API call. However I have seen a lot of people write things like "MFC is bad because I allways have to work around their document/view structure" I have found that the Doc/View works great for a lot of applications I write, however it is very easy, and possible to use MFC without the Doc/View stuff. Also in a lot of instances I have coded "outside" the framework of MFC, as long as you have a good general knowledge and people like Paul from MSJ programming outside of the framework isn't too complicated. :-D Of course these are limitations. I just don't understand what STL and ATL have over MFC, other than the fact that MFC is tied to the Win32 API. (but again if you are programming for windows you are using the Win32 API anyways regardless). C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses

So were are some good refrences for STL? A good beginners text or something. I started out programming C++ for DOS 6.2 with Borland.. but I never really used templates before. As far as windows programming I started with MFC.. Learing Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 by Chuck Spar (really like that book. was easy to follow).. anyways now if I could go back, I think I would have learning the API first (I am doing that now).. but back to my question.. STL.. that is Standard Template Library correct? what is so great about templates? IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses

What is MFC so hated? I can understand why somebody programming for linux would not like MFC, I can even understand why a borland fan would not like MFC. But somebody using MSVC and programming for Windows?? That does not make sense. Not if the only thing from the MFC library you are using is a CString, Ok I can understand that. Not much sense in including the library for a CString. I understand that MFC is a little bloated. But why do developers not like MFC? I have been seeing that a lot of articles being posted (outside the .NET crap) are MFC biased. is MFC really that bad? IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses