Since some time I code all my tools as simple self-made asm projects. When I need something else than a stupid window, I write a resource script in plain.

But as I come from Visual-Basic background ( started up with qbasic years ago 8) ) I know how fast a nice user interface is dragged/dropped across some hours. Therefore I thought about writing asm DLL files with all functions that contain main source, and calling those from a Visual Basic Interface. The VB-File then is something about several kb, but that shouldn't disturb. This was I have still the joy of coding in asm while the interface seems user-friendly and doesn't take such long and monoton source code. Besides I can use Callback Functions in order to keep all VB-labels updated all the time :).
Well, to come to an end I wonder what you think about how to deal with micro$ofts crappy implementations of Interface things.

Dominik
Posted on 2004-10-23 20:15:16 by Dom
I don't like either. But, in plain c++ it sucks as much as in win32asm. The way things are need to be done in windows simply isn't very nice :)
Posted on 2004-10-24 03:30:49 by lifewire
All the IDEs provided in the board by great coders are awesome, and coding the additional stuff for button/stuff handling is almost as easy to me as in VB. Thus, I would never think about returning to VB, even for just the UI.
In C/C++ coding Win32 is boring, so it'll stay out of my sight for years. Yeah, listboxes and stuff are a bit more complicated, but for them I can easily make an OOP object, and then use it as fast as in VB (coding speed I mean).
Handling multithreading in VB is hard, so asm wins with even greater distance over VB :-D , since I code mostly multithreaded apps on x86.
Anyway, if anything hard comes up and I'll use it at least twice, I turn it into an OOP object :-D. Makes life easier.
Posted on 2004-10-24 03:57:01 by Ultrano
Especially resizing-parts in asm are hard to implement.....
lifewire: nice attitude :)
Posted on 2004-10-24 10:07:35 by Dom
I don't like either. But, in plain c++ it sucks as much as in win32asm. The way things are need to be done in windows simply isn't very nice :)


Blame their backwards compatibility department. Of course, remember that you blamed them next time something runs on your machine that should be too old to. My hat's definitely off to the guys that patched 3.x through it's iterations and then made sure everything from that era still ran on 98 and up. Longhorn is the death knell of the (seemingly) only solid camp in Redmond.

Longhorn definitely doesn't seem to be really targeted towards developers, developers, developers, developers. Or business consumers for that matter. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong over the next couple of years.
Either way, *Nix, here I come. My work will wise up to their clustering potential long before they upgrade that far (we just now "upgraded" to NT4). Now all I have to do is keep steering them towards clusters :twisted:

But let's not get started on MS and Longhorn. Every bout of genius must be balanced by an equal and opposite bout of stupidity.
Posted on 2004-10-25 01:33:28 by ChupaThingy
Blame their backwards compatibility department.


Right. Because I have a Windows programming manual written for Windows 1.0 (ONE point zero), and the only thing that doesn't work anymore is a function that copies the data between two instances of a single program. Otherwise, everything works in exactly the same manner.
Posted on 2004-10-25 03:49:12 by AmkG
dom: dom are you the french dom/mwb
Posted on 2004-10-25 11:59:09 by HeLLoWorld
Longhorn definitely doesn't seem to be really targeted towards developers, developers, developers, developers. Or business consumers for that matter. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong over the next couple of years.
From what i've seen of Longhorn it adds increasing power to what the less computer literate can do. Good or bad, what we define a devloper to be is shifting and splintering. Currently, there are several different types of developers: some are masters in a small domain, while others transgress multiple abstraction layers on a daily basis, and others have never edited a line of code. The size of industry forces this to happen - there is no avoiding the complexity.

Learning about Longhorn has taught me things I can do to improve my applications today. I don't have to wait two years or more, but can implement strategies to improve user interfaces experiences all the way from the programmer to the user.
Posted on 2004-10-25 12:45:09 by bitRAKE
I come from germany, not france!
Posted on 2004-10-27 10:41:22 by Dom
Longhorn definitely doesn't seem to be really targeted towards developers, developers, developers, developers. Or business consumers for that matter. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong over the next couple of years.


I didn't write that! :)
Posted on 2004-10-27 11:25:21 by lifewire
I didn't write that! :)
Sorry, haste makes waste. I have fixed the post. :oops:
Posted on 2004-10-27 12:00:55 by bitRAKE
dom,

as ultrano implied,
use OOP in asm, and never cry about asm being slow and VB fast.
Posted on 2004-10-27 12:19:10 by wizzra