MVP Award...
in [MFC]
|
Prev: CMenu class and menu object
Next: need some class help
From: James Juno on 26 Feb 2010 13:02 And I will negate you by saying the OpenGL API to the graphics hardware is not obsolete, not by a long shot. I've worked in this business long enough to understand my customers' needs. We're talking scientists and engineers here. Besides, the interface to the display hardware isn't a serious issue (switching to Microsoft's proprietary API isn't difficult, depending on the foresight built into your code). We follow a paradigm that's been established over decades and are in a position to force a substantial subset of our customers (probably all of them) to move with us. We aren't going to be driven my Microsoft's unstable technology shifts designed to force developers onto their upgrade train. Again, I'm speaking from experience with a small set of sophisticated customers. Your words might very well ring true elsewhere, I don't know. -JJ "Ajay Kalra" wrote... On Feb 26, 12:21 pm, "James Juno" <j...(a)noplace.fake> wrote: > Funny thing. My shop specializes in scientific data visualization using > OpenGL. We've replaced some of the MFC controls with in-house (and > superior) equivalents rendered in an OpenGL context. I guess in a sort of > bastardized way, this is similar to WPF. Still, we're unlikely to consider > using WPF anytime in the near future. Our toolset is too highly integrated > into the more battle-tested and mature (or, depending on your agenda, > "legacy and obsolete") technology. I am certain I will call OpenGL as obsolete technology(May DirectX is now better; dont know). There is no agenda here but for vanilla UI apps not requring any specialization, .Net is far superior IMO. Even with apps requiring specialization, .Net can coexist comfortably. The problem is not about embracing a newer technology, its about the cost of migrating over existing system to newer one. Normally there is no reason to do it and its a waste of resources without any real benefits. However for new apps, these rules dont apply.
From: Hector Santos on 26 Feb 2010 13:05 David Lowndes wrote: >> Or the fact that they basically re-implemented what was already a flawed design. > > From a couple of the issues I noticed, I have a suspicion they > reimplemented it from an early version before bugs were fixed (a long > time ago). Personally, I have held off from upgrading from VS2005 and was "excited" to hear that VS2010 was the new "VC6", that microsoft took notice of the long time investments in MFC and long time developer neglect during the last decade. But it seems the same of issues (and possible worst) has continued. I read the project manager blog and I believe he was misguided taking "reviews" from testers who I honestly believe they don't really want to tell him the bad news, so they tell him "its better than the beta" and believes thats OK! I don't think that is the real test. I'm a speed demon, power programmer. I really only used the IDE to design the GUI and outline of events. From there, I use my trusted Qedit (renamed to TSE) power programmer editor (http://www.semware.com) of 30 years - the BEST in the world. :) I need fast loading, no slow downs in typing, and fast macro programming for patterns. I don't need intellisense slowing me down - its terrible. But the younger engineers use the IDE and I am not going to discourage them. They are amazed at how fast I program and how fast I swap things around with macros, but but its foreign to them. They really don't know the difference and they think it (IDE) is normal and I believe that is what Microsoft is thinking is the market too. I personally believe a big part of the slow down has to do with security related stuff and all the new layers of dlls and sub-systems. VS2005 compiles 50%-250% slower for the same code. I dug into this with depends and found that during compile it the Crypto sub-system is ALWAYS invoked and this is where there are compiler delays. But surprisingly, when I called this with VC6, it did the same thing but was FASTER. I just did a quick timing test with a 1 line hello world: XP box source code across the LAN: VC6 : ~700ms VS2005: ~1600ms When I first encounter this, I had a 1G XP box. I was seeing 1:5 compiler speeds. Adding another gig (2GIG total) with some registry changes to fine tune the Paging system, it was more acceptable now, but still slower. When I measured the time differences via DEPENDS, the time was only lost with the crypto sub-system which was invoked for some reason, all other times were the basically the same. -- HLS
From: Ajay Kalra on 26 Feb 2010 13:17 On Feb 26, 1:02 pm, "James Juno" <j...(a)noplace.fake> wrote: > And I will negate you by saying the OpenGL API to the graphics hardware is I wrote it wrong. I wanted to say OpenGL is *not* obsolete. Sorry. I worked at Autodesk for a long time and we used OpenGL for all our 3D visualization needs. It was the only way at that time and DirectX was far behind. I dont know where DirectX stands now vs OpenGL. -- Ajay
From: James Juno on 26 Feb 2010 13:17 Hi, Hector. Your attitude is music to my ears. Would that I was hiring and you needed a job... -JJ "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:efpWR5wtKHA.4492(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > David Lowndes wrote: > >>> Or the fact that they basically re-implemented what was already a flawed >>> design. >> >> From a couple of the issues I noticed, I have a suspicion they >> reimplemented it from an early version before bugs were fixed (a long >> time ago). > > Personally, I have held off from upgrading from VS2005 and was "excited" > to hear that VS2010 was the new "VC6", that microsoft took notice of the > long time investments in MFC and long time developer neglect during the > last decade. > > But it seems the same of issues (and possible worst) has continued. I read > the project manager blog and I believe he was misguided taking "reviews" > from testers who I honestly believe they don't really want to tell him the > bad news, so they tell him "its better than the beta" and believes thats > OK! I don't think that is the real test. > > I'm a speed demon, power programmer. I really only used the IDE to design > the GUI and outline of events. From there, I use my trusted Qedit > (renamed to TSE) power programmer editor (http://www.semware.com) of 30 > years - the BEST in the world. :) I need fast loading, no slow downs in > typing, and fast macro programming for patterns. I don't need > intellisense slowing me down - its terrible. > > But the younger engineers use the IDE and I am not going to discourage > them. They are amazed at how fast I program and how fast I swap things > around with macros, but but its foreign to them. They really don't know > the difference and they think it (IDE) is normal and I believe that is > what Microsoft is thinking is the market too. > > I personally believe a big part of the slow down has to do with security > related stuff and all the new layers of dlls and sub-systems. > > VS2005 compiles 50%-250% slower for the same code. I dug into this with > depends and found that during compile it the Crypto sub-system is ALWAYS > invoked and this is where there are compiler delays. But surprisingly, > when I called this with VC6, it did the same thing but was FASTER. > > I just did a quick timing test with a 1 line hello world: > > XP box source code across the LAN: > > VC6 : ~700ms > VS2005: ~1600ms > > When I first encounter this, I had a 1G XP box. I was seeing 1:5 compiler > speeds. Adding another gig (2GIG total) with some registry changes to > fine tune the Paging system, it was more acceptable now, but still slower. > > When I measured the time differences via DEPENDS, the time was only lost > with the crypto sub-system which was invoked for some reason, all other > times were the basically the same.
From: James Juno on 26 Feb 2010 13:23
Ah, OK. Thanks Ajay, I didn't mean to come off sounding like some angry evangelical jerk. You're obviously a smart guy so I was somewhat confused by your statement. ;-) -JJ "Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2196badf-9e05-442f-8655-9ee1982407e5(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... On Feb 26, 1:02 pm, "James Juno" <j...(a)noplace.fake> wrote: > And I will negate you by saying the OpenGL API to the graphics hardware is I wrote it wrong. I wanted to say OpenGL is *not* obsolete. Sorry. I worked at Autodesk for a long time and we used OpenGL for all our 3D visualization needs. It was the only way at that time and DirectX was far behind. I dont know where DirectX stands now vs OpenGL. -- Ajay |