here's the comment area for today's blog article found here:
http://www.zabkat.com/blog/26Oct08-x64- ... d-ATL3.htm
it is rather technical for generic consumption but you might find something in it for you too!
blog: 64 bit from the inside
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
As Nikos the Luddite joked about adding another 10 years to VS6's lifespan, he may in reality be able to squeak out at least half of that, "just to prove a point." Since it was recently revealed that Windows 7 is technically Vista Build 6.1 (this is no bad thing) the actual development tools need not change dramatically. Much as Office 14 is not lightyears ahead of Office 2007, the former/latter co-existence with no "fundamental changes" will be with us for some time to come.
Is VS9 (2008 + SP1) an improvement over VS6? Undoubtedly. Need it be embraced by everyone, particularly in a world where hardware regresses (laptops) as it becomes more prevalent? Of course not. The essence of programming hasn't changed much in the last 40 years (specifics/hardware/UI/interdependency - Yes; Essence - No), so whilst the bells and whistles get louder and louder and make impressive deafening noise (Pink Floyd killing fish a la 1970), the meaningless multitudinous splinterings taken so seriously these days (Java, Perl, Ruby, la la la, and their homogenized offspring) will melt like the wicked witch at the merest splash of water.
Until such time as he chooses to become apostate and introduce the dreaded "Ribbon" into X2 (in the interest of making the Cyprian Rift seem a mere snowball fight), many a developer will happily sniff at .Net 3.5, flick their cigarette ash at Microsoft's Channel 9 interpretation of reinventing other people's ideas for the next few years, and happily carry on behind the scenes much like they do now.
Whilst I jokingly, arrogantly, snigger at anyone with less than a Quad and 4 GB of memory (which is behind the times even now) I know that the wheel is still the most efficient form of planetary-bound conveyance. If that means most people will stick with the cartoon platform of XP running on biscuit-tin hardware in the foreseeable future, so be it. They will be well catered for. Hence the reason Pink Floyd are still around today, if dying off quickly (RIP Rick Wright).
Nikos the Neutered Technocrat can rejoice in the old-dog/new-tricks paradigm for a few more years yet.
P.S. Again, I offer the "in the spirit intended" disclaimer to the reader, this cool fresh Kalends of November. :D
Is VS9 (2008 + SP1) an improvement over VS6? Undoubtedly. Need it be embraced by everyone, particularly in a world where hardware regresses (laptops) as it becomes more prevalent? Of course not. The essence of programming hasn't changed much in the last 40 years (specifics/hardware/UI/interdependency - Yes; Essence - No), so whilst the bells and whistles get louder and louder and make impressive deafening noise (Pink Floyd killing fish a la 1970), the meaningless multitudinous splinterings taken so seriously these days (Java, Perl, Ruby, la la la, and their homogenized offspring) will melt like the wicked witch at the merest splash of water.
Until such time as he chooses to become apostate and introduce the dreaded "Ribbon" into X2 (in the interest of making the Cyprian Rift seem a mere snowball fight), many a developer will happily sniff at .Net 3.5, flick their cigarette ash at Microsoft's Channel 9 interpretation of reinventing other people's ideas for the next few years, and happily carry on behind the scenes much like they do now.
Whilst I jokingly, arrogantly, snigger at anyone with less than a Quad and 4 GB of memory (which is behind the times even now) I know that the wheel is still the most efficient form of planetary-bound conveyance. If that means most people will stick with the cartoon platform of XP running on biscuit-tin hardware in the foreseeable future, so be it. They will be well catered for. Hence the reason Pink Floyd are still around today, if dying off quickly (RIP Rick Wright).
Nikos the Neutered Technocrat can rejoice in the old-dog/new-tricks paradigm for a few more years yet.
P.S. Again, I offer the "in the spirit intended" disclaimer to the reader, this cool fresh Kalends of November. :D
Sure, C++ isn't changed much (although it's much more strict and implemented right in VC 2005+), but it's much easier to have all latest Windows features supported with latest SDKs and ATLs, then with 10 year old environment.Kilmatead wrote:Is VS9 (2008 + SP1) an improvement over VS6? Undoubtedly. Need it be embraced by everyone, particularly in a world where hardware regresses (laptops) as it becomes more prevalent? Of course not. The essence of programming hasn't changed much in the last 40 years (specifics/hardware/UI/interdependency - Yes; Essence - No)
PS.
Gosh, man, your writing is wicked!
I'm using Xplorer2 - the only file manager that does not suck. Actually, it rocks!
The problem is one has to look at exactly what Microsoft chooses to support and why they support it.
Consider the initial 2008 Visual IDE - it's C++ support was best described as dire... sure, there were some additions to the "bells and whistles", but most of the changes were to Visual Basic and C#... not to "bring them up to speed", but simply because Microsoft would prefer developers be based on proprietary inventions (C# is a wholly owned/wholly invented Microsoft creation) rather than a standard (such as C++) which is beyond their control demesnes.
Note how many projects are created/supported/ported and "still around" via the Linux/Windows Bloodshed, GCC, Cygwin communities of compilers alone. Is everything easier via Window's SDK, ATL, MFC? Obviously, and that's the subversive part of it - every now and again Redmond do something good (never mind the great peacetime projects like World Wide Telescope).
However, what they really want is control (witness the latest OOXML debacle) of standards, disguised as being "for the public good." I can't fault them for that, but nor would I praise their eternal "messing with the libraries" too much.
But (to complete the example) VS9 only became properly C++ supportive (TR1, et cetera) after a great many established developers with huge code-bases (who weren't interested in converting to C# and the like) complained about it's lack of support - thusly, quietly, and hurriedly provided by the VS SP1 patch.
Think about it - wouldn't it be a grand coup to have Universities (never mind businesses) teach/demand a "standard" that you own (C#/.NET)? That is, unfortunately, what the politics behind Visual Studio are about.
That said, VS9 is a grand toy. Just beware of the "latest and greatest" from monolithic leviathans bearing gifts. All is not what it may seem.
Consider the initial 2008 Visual IDE - it's C++ support was best described as dire... sure, there were some additions to the "bells and whistles", but most of the changes were to Visual Basic and C#... not to "bring them up to speed", but simply because Microsoft would prefer developers be based on proprietary inventions (C# is a wholly owned/wholly invented Microsoft creation) rather than a standard (such as C++) which is beyond their control demesnes.
Note how many projects are created/supported/ported and "still around" via the Linux/Windows Bloodshed, GCC, Cygwin communities of compilers alone. Is everything easier via Window's SDK, ATL, MFC? Obviously, and that's the subversive part of it - every now and again Redmond do something good (never mind the great peacetime projects like World Wide Telescope).
However, what they really want is control (witness the latest OOXML debacle) of standards, disguised as being "for the public good." I can't fault them for that, but nor would I praise their eternal "messing with the libraries" too much.
But (to complete the example) VS9 only became properly C++ supportive (TR1, et cetera) after a great many established developers with huge code-bases (who weren't interested in converting to C# and the like) complained about it's lack of support - thusly, quietly, and hurriedly provided by the VS SP1 patch.
Think about it - wouldn't it be a grand coup to have Universities (never mind businesses) teach/demand a "standard" that you own (C#/.NET)? That is, unfortunately, what the politics behind Visual Studio are about.
That said, VS9 is a grand toy. Just beware of the "latest and greatest" from monolithic leviathans bearing gifts. All is not what it may seem.
Please check your facts.Kilmatead wrote:Consider the initial 2008 Visual IDE - it's C++ support was best described as dire... sure, there were some additions to the "bells and whistles", but most of the changes were to Visual Basic and C#... not to "bring them up to speed", but simply because Microsoft would prefer developers be based on proprietary inventions (C# is a wholly owned/wholly invented Microsoft creation) rather than a standard (such as C++) which is beyond their control demesnes.
What I want is a product that I can just install and start using, solving MY problems. I don't want any of the solutions that are just "were around" which require a lot of effort to just make THEM work. It's not feasible for business.Kilmatead wrote: However, what they really want is control (witness the latest OOXML debacle) of standards, disguised as being "for the public good." I can't fault them for that, but nor would I praise their eternal "messing with the libraries" too much.
And it's kind of late to speak about the vendor lock-in, because x2 is Windows-only product. Thank God, you cannot expect it to work everywhere, because it would become another product "around".
Microsoft does what their customer WANT. What are you complaining about? TR1 made it into VS once it was approved to some extent by the committee. It's not "quietly" or "secretly".Kilmatead wrote: But (to complete the example) VS9 only became properly C++ supportive (TR1, et cetera) after a great many established developers with huge code-bases (who weren't interested in converting to C# and the like) complained about it's lack of support - thusly, quietly, and hurriedly provided by the VS SP1 patch.
I'm using Xplorer2 - the only file manager that does not suck. Actually, it rocks!
Umm... which facts? All I pointed out was that C# was developed by Microsoft expressly for their .NET milieu, which it was. (Check it's Wiki for development history.) I never said it wasn't a "real" language, replete with latter ECMA legitimacy. (Ok, upon re-reading it I did suggest it wasn't a standard, but what I meant was that it wasn't an independent non-Corporate-owned standard, like C was at least originally meant to be.wasker wrote:Please check your facts.
)I wasn't referring to vendor lock-in, as Nikos mentioned in the blog...wasker wrote:And it's kind of late to speak about the vendor lock-in, because x2 is Windows-only product.
...so we end up in the odd world of inter-Windows dependencies/conflicts. This was his rationale for not upgrading to the "latest and greatest", which is a perfectly legitimate attitude. Not one that Microsoft would endorse, obviously, but realistic nonetheless.Nikos wrote:"I don't want to introduce (possible) bugs switching to a new ATL and a new GUI."
I'm not particularly anti-Windows (I quite like Vista), and obviously industry standards are a good thing, it's simply the realisation that having one company dictate what "works and doesn't work" is not always a great thing. Witness Vista itself. The nature of behemoths. So it goes.wasker wrote:What I want is a product that I can just install and start using, solving MY problems.
I was referring to the initial release of VS2008. It's well documented that the C++ module was received rather woefully by developers, as it had nothing new in it (compared to the other elements). SP1 (and before that the C++ expansion) solved that for the most part, but it's obvious that those were not part of the original plan, and indeed were trumpeted alongside the .NET 3.5 release as a "see what else we did?" sort of thing.wasker wrote:Microsoft does what their customer WANT. What are you complaining about? TR1 made it into VS once it was approved to some extent by the committee. It's not "quietly" or "secretly".
Heck, given the very subject matter of this thread (x64), Microsoft's ambivalence towards where "it" thinks things are going is a bit muddled. It's difficult for users to have faith in a company that can't make up it's mind about what it wants to support.
And as to the belief that Microsoft is only doing what it's customers want, it's funny how the issue of Creative vs. Daniel K comes to mind. This has nothing to do with Microsoft directly, but more to the corporate culture behind it, and just who's interests large businesses have in mind. Rarely is it the end-user. Just a thought.
(Zabkat excepted! :D No doubt Nikos would even sponsor kittens and butterflies if he could.
)As Nikos dutifully drolls away the afternoons wondering why he, too, did not think of a checkbox like this one: :D
Developers need a sense of gracious humour. And, perhaps, a brandy from time to time, to stay (at least in their own minds) the greedy voracious hordes of demanding users crashing down the palace gates.
X2 x64 was but one small successful battle in a larger war - to paraphrase a metaphor.
Developers need a sense of gracious humour. And, perhaps, a brandy from time to time, to stay (at least in their own minds) the greedy voracious hordes of demanding users crashing down the palace gates.
X2 x64 was but one small successful battle in a larger war - to paraphrase a metaphor.
Re: blog: 64 bit from the inside
Hi, I found the solution for the thunk alloc and dealloc interesting.
I was looking at this implementation -- http://mengdejun.iteye.com/blog/930364 -- which seems to be the original microsoft's implementation and notice they are using a thunkpool.
I would like to know if you're aware of this approach that uses a thunkpool and if you are, I also would like to know why you're using the VirtualAlloc and VirtualFree directly?
Sorry about the curiosity and thanks in advance.
Gilson.
I was looking at this implementation -- http://mengdejun.iteye.com/blog/930364 -- which seems to be the original microsoft's implementation and notice they are using a thunkpool.
I would like to know if you're aware of this approach that uses a thunkpool and if you are, I also would like to know why you're using the VirtualAlloc and VirtualFree directly?
Sorry about the curiosity and thanks in advance.
Gilson.