Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SDK Definition

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Steve Hutchesson View Post


    Tell us what you know about using the Windows API and you may have something to say, so far you are trolling on the basis of what you clearly don't understand.

    It may burden the ego of some who have not tried to master the API but the only solution is to learn more, not waffle more.

    I will put it to you again, in a topic "SDK Definition" you have nothing to say because you have not learnt how to write this style of code and don't know enough to make the definition.

    None the less, technical ignorance and a bruised ego will keep driving you to troll in this area even though you have never done the work to learn it.
    Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up C and C++ for PowerBASIC.
    The world is strange and wonderful.*
    I reserve the right to be horrifically wrong.
    Please maintain a safe following distance.
    *wonderful sold separately.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Steve Hutchesson View Post
      Most admit that DDT has its place, exactly what Bob designed it to do, make a simplified entry into Windows programming ...
      I'm one of many who are grateful to Bob and DDT for getting me up and running with windows apps in a few weeks. But although DDT is a gentle and well-made path, it does not take you to all the places that you may need to go. This is not to say that you can't develop excellent apps using DDT alone.

      Why knock DDT? It has done a great job for many coders and the Zale family. Why knock SDK? Because SDKers carry more knowledge? Who cares?

      a) It is great to know that we have excellence in our ranks, especially when people are prepared to share it.

      b) Understanding beats the crap out of Knowledge any day.

      Comment


      • #63
        Kurt--

        It is mostly a matter of the type of code you have to write.

        While DDT has been designed to create dialog, it could not to be used to write third party addons (DLL) needing close interaction with the OS.

        Some of the most advanced programming stuff can only be done from a DLL, like writing driver, codec, hook/trampolin, or even custom controls exposing their own API.

        The beauty of PowerBASIC is that it could be used by novices or system programmers, but the lack of 64-bit support is a real handicap for those belonging to the second category.

        Because SDK programmers did the effort to learn the core API, they felt abandoned when they realised that most of the PB's resources were dedicated to enhance DDT while the compiler itself didn't progress, and that was the source of the great schism between DDTer and SDKer, and the consequence was to force those wanting to stay in the race to move away from PB.

        And now it is too late.

        ...
        Last edited by Patrice Terrier; 8 Nov 2014, 08:14 AM.
        Patrice Terrier
        www.zapsolution.com
        www.objreader.com
        Addons: GDImage.DLL 32/64-bit (Graphic library), WinLIFT.DLL 32/64-bit (Skin Engine).

        Comment


        • #64
          Chris,

          I have no beef with DDT at all, its what Bob designed for a target market and it has served them well. My complaint has been with the few who think because they can use DDT that they have something to tell folks who have been writing API code for often over 20 years.

          Its like a subset trying to dictate to a superset that have done years of work to learn what they know. There is no substitute for having done the hard yards and there is no glamour or status symbols involved in spending years to become highly proficient in this style of programming, just lots of hard work.
          hutch at movsd dot com
          The MASM Forum

          www.masm32.com

          Comment


          • #65
            As I understand the first posting, this forum should help people start with SDK programming. If someone does NOW anything about it or don't want to read this, why complaining about this forum, just ignore it.

            I have red 5 pages by now, with many stange discussions ... maybe my english is to bad to understand the reason about it.

            Gary, I have never used SDK for Windows, and I think this forum is a good idea
            Regards,
            Hubert

            ------------------------------------
            http://familie-brandel.de/index_e.html

            Comment


            • #66
              I have no beef with DDT at all, its what Bob designed for a target market and it has served them well. My complaint has been with the few who think because they can use DDT that they have something to tell folks who have been writing API code for often over 20 years.

              Its like a subset trying to dictate to a superset that have done years of work to learn what they know. There is no substitute for having done the hard yards and there is no glamour or status symbols involved in spending years to become highly proficient in this style of programming, just lots of hard work.
              I beg to differ here. This kind of thinking has held the SDKers back for years. The target market that Bob was creating DDT for was those that want to program in BASIC. As such, it will be different than the SDK, do different things, and do things differently-a different language. DDT is not less than the SDK, DDTers are not the subset. It still isn't finished.

              Oops! Back to lurkin'
              Rod
              I want not 'not', not Knot, not Knott, not Nott, not knot, not naught, not nought, but aught.

              Comment


              • #67
                Rodney--

                No problem, SDKers is a species in danger of extinction

                ...
                Patrice Terrier
                www.zapsolution.com
                www.objreader.com
                Addons: GDImage.DLL 32/64-bit (Graphic library), WinLIFT.DLL 32/64-bit (Skin Engine).

                Comment


                • #68
                  Hi Rodney!
                  The target market that Bob was creating DDT for was those that want to program in BASIC.
                  That's a bit different than I would have expressed it.

                  I thought DDT was for those who did not want to program in API. For statements that BASIC never offered in the past, PowerBASIC allows me to supplement my BASIC statements with DDT or SDK code.

                  Neither DDT nor SDK are BASIC - they're both ways to access API functionality and can be used with basic statements - supplements to historical BASIC statements.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Hey Patrice!
                    ... SDKers is a species in danger of extinction...
                    I was thinking that the SDK species, though becoming a minority since Bob starting pushing DDT, was now in danger of a renaissance! In this forum, we've certainly seen responses from members who are showing an interest in SDK.

                    If the "Benefits of SDK" thread is accurate, there's an ongoing need for SDK coding. I hope that the new openness here on the topic of SDK should help remove the concern about any "danger of extinction"!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      After programming in QB and VB, PBWin is like a breath of fresh air. The compiler is fantastic and the software it generates is better than any of the previous Basic software I've used.

                      So when I program, I use DDT unless I'm forced to use API functions, which I can easily do with PBWin. As a result, PB has been directly responsible for virtually all my knowledge of API functions and how the Window callback system functions. Until I started using PBWin, I was clueless about most of this, so the last couple of years have been a fantastic learning process. Without PB I would not have checked out SDK.

                      That being said, I want to reiterate that DDT is my primary and first choice because it's simple and beats the dickens out of anything I've used previously. Next are API calls to accomplish things not possible using just DDT. Next would be ML routines. Last would be SDK.

                      Remember that in the end, whether DDT or SDK, we can all run the completed code through Bob's PB compiler to get a completed program file.
                      It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        there's an ongoing need for SDK coding
                        Indeed i earn my living from this, and it is the benefit of being a species in danger of extinction, that is the consequence of too many unsafe programming practice in those days of managed coding style.
                        Patrice Terrier
                        www.zapsolution.com
                        www.objreader.com
                        Addons: GDImage.DLL 32/64-bit (Graphic library), WinLIFT.DLL 32/64-bit (Skin Engine).

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          There is some humour in the cycles of fashion in computer programming and they are driven on a needs basis by OS design and end user expectation versus the absolute hardware capacity of processors and memory.

                          For a long time hardware outstripped software and it led to sloppy junk like the VB family and other horrors as processor speed kept getting faster but technical limitations have brought that to an end.

                          I own the last PIV made, a 3.8 gig server processor and while any of the quads I have running will clean it up in throughput due to multiple cores, at a single core level they are not much faster than the PIV.

                          Now while Microsoft committed vast resources to .NET (VB.GARBAGE.DOT.WOT etc ....) they are starting to shift back to their own VC with native code because the ever increasing expectations of better faster software is not being met with visual garbage generators.

                          It has happened before, in 1995 Microsoft were advising MASM users that it was no longer needed and would not be upgraded but a couple of years later they produced a patch that converted the last boxed version of ML.EXE into a full 32 bit version. In late 1999 they reintroduced ML.EXE to VC and it is still there while being upgraded with processor instruction changes. They have a rudimentary 64 bit version called ML64.EXE.

                          A tool like this will always be needed by OS vendors as there are bits in both 32 and 64 bit OS versions that must be fast, program loaders and instruction schedulers are never going to be written in .NET, they must be in fast native code.

                          The current trend with Microsoft in OS level binary is a return to VC native code in conjunction with the Windows API as they are needed for the OS and it is here that API based programming still has its strength, its needed for the OS and its the reason why it generally performs well. Its just that its not always easy to work with if you don't have the experience in how it works.

                          There is also the element of at least some API code is buggy and like OS vendors, you learn work arounds to get it going reliably.
                          hutch at movsd dot com
                          The MASM Forum

                          www.masm32.com

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            That's a bit different than I would have expressed it.
                            Bob had to call it something to shield us from ourselves.
                            I thought DDT was for those who did not want to program in API.
                            And I always thought DDT was for those that wanted to program in BASIC.

                            Until Bob was finished developing his DDT the superset of DDT would have to be assisted by a subset of SDK(a diminishing one at that).(Sometimes old technology is good enough! )
                            Rod
                            I want not 'not', not Knot, not Knott, not Nott, not knot, not naught, not nought, but aught.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Rodney,
                              ... Sometimes old technology is good enough..
                              Yes. When I first came to PowerBASIC I recall how impressed I was that apps and code written many years ago still worked just fine, across pretty much all of the Windows OSs. I'm still impressed.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Does it perform as specified?

                                Is it relatively efficient?

                                Is it maintainable?

                                Three "yes" responses and nobody cares how you did it.
                                Michael Mattias
                                Tal Systems Inc. (retired)
                                Racine WI USA
                                [email protected]
                                http://www.talsystems.com

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  The main virtue is the core OS code for 32 bit has not changed appreciably since WinNT 4.0. Much has been added and much of it is useful but some things that did not change (backwards compatibility) never needed to change.

                                  1 + 1 still equals 2, what is there to change ?

                                  None the less you needed to understand the change in PE specifications with DEP, Vista and later requiring a manifest and version control block, the later "common" controls etc etc .... but the core API to remain backwards compatible has not changed for close to 20 years.
                                  hutch at movsd dot com
                                  The MASM Forum

                                  www.masm32.com

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X