where is a copy of atlstr.h ??
in [Visual C]
|
From: Stephen Howe on 29 Dec 2005 08:29 I don't work for Microsoft and am not an MVP. But your position is not reasonable. > Historically, I've been trying to learn about threads, ran across a > sample program with the header file atlstr.h which I couldn't find, > hence the sample did not compile. So? I ran across a sample DOS program. At one time Microsoft supported generation of DOS programs. Should I claim VStudio is incomplete because I cannot produce DOS programs? I ran across a sample OS/2 program. At one time Microsoft supported generation of OS/2 programs. Should I claim VStudio is incomplete because I cannot produce OS/2 programs? I ran across a sample Win32s program. At one time Microsoft supported generation of Win32s programs (VC 4.0 was last one). Should I claim VStudio is incomplete because I cannot produce Win32s programs any more? You will find that with each generation of Visual Studio, things are being dropped off, usually the stuff for producing executables many generations ago. That is perfectly normal. > For 3 days now I have been trying to find atlstr.h Then I would fire you. 3 days is too long. > The description of this massive quantity of time consuming download > described itself as "complete" and "all that is necessary to". Right. But when you say "complete", is it your understanding that the compiler is capable of producing all executable types, for all Microsoft OS's, right back to DOS 1.0? That is probably not your understanding. "Complete" may mean (and this is my understanding), that it contains all that is necessary to produce .NET programs, nothing more. Or Win32 programs, nothing more. And that may mean no-frills tools. I think you are being naive or disingenous to think otherwise. > So I > spent the time to download them and install them, only to find that > something is still missing. Something that MS still does not tell me > where it is. So how do I trust that *if* I pay for some "undefined" > software; I will get what I need, and there won't be one more missing > piece? I can't. MFC & ATL are just icing on the cake. They are *NOT* necessary to produce Win32 programs. And every bit of their functionality can be duplicated for any Win32 program. And they are certainly *NOT* necessary to study threading in Windows. > As a sensible person I was under the impression that what I had *was* > crippled enough. Having a lousy line command compiler... I don't think it is lousy. It is pretty close to the ISO C++ standard It produces damn good optimisation And VStudio Express is free. To me, it is outrageous, simple outrageous that you grumble. > *and* no IDE and > no coherent documentation. There is online documentation. It is not perfect, no, but it is reasonable. > I was perfectly willing to use these obnoxious tools to learn enough to see if this is an area I wish to > invest in. In order to do this learning I found sample programs - at > the source of Windows: MS website - which were not useable for me. AND > more importantly, please listen to this, I don't know what I need, or > don't have. As said, MFC & ATL are icing on the cake. The sample programs use them. But they are not necessary, just convienent. The old adage holds good: If you want everything, you have to pay for it. Everybody knows (apart from you) that cut-down tools usually have reduced functionality. > I am startled that this information is either not > known at MS, or worse, purposely obfuscated. Not really. I found out, from the FAQ, that VStudio Express did not come with MFC & ATL after 10 minutes checking. I purposely looked at the FAQ becuase I was sure Microsoft had left something out and I wanted to find out what it was. Why didn't you? > It has taken much time and the valuable help, luckily supplied by > people like yourself... <laugh> Well those people are criticising you for your naive expectatations. >..., to tell me what Microsoft should have already > told me and had as ready information for their potential customers. I > must be very old fashioned to think that it is the VENDOR's > responsibility to educate their consumer. You must be walking around in diapers or nappys to expect Microsoft to permanently hold your hand. Stephen Howe
From: Stephen Howe on 29 Dec 2005 10:27 > Let's be unambiguous shall we? In order to get ATL and MFC, you must get one > of the following three: > > 1. Visual Studio Standard > 2. Visual Studio Professional > 3. Visual Studio Team System (which comes in several versions) Yes okay John. I 100% agree with you. Sorry for the lack of clarity. And thanks for your clarity (seems a rare commodity these days) Stephen Howe
From: Robert Macy on 29 Dec 2005 10:54 Thank you for confirming what I'm am just starting to realize. When the description of the download says, "Everything you will need to..." don't believe it. Why, on my search for atlstr.h during my FIRST visit, and many subsequent visits, to Microsoft didn't MS have the courtesy, or intelligence, to tell me that? Is this company so disorganized or their product so out of control that such important information must come from third parties? ....rhetorical questions - Robert -
From: Alex Blekhman on 29 Dec 2005 11:23 Robert Macy wrote: > Thank you for confirming what I'm am just starting to > realize. > > When the description of the download says, "Everything > you will need to..." don't believe it. > > Why, on my search for atlstr.h during my FIRST visit, and > many subsequent visits, to Microsoft didn't MS have the > courtesy, or intelligence, to tell me that? > > Is this company so disorganized or their product so out > of control that such important information must come from > third parties? "Visual C++ 2005 Express FAQ" http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/support/faq/#vcpp See answer 42. (It's not a joke.)
From: Robert Macy on 29 Dec 2005 12:08
....uh, at risk of killing the frog, I don't get it. - Robert - |