I'd like to develop an application targeting modern popular Linux distributions that uses GTK for its UI, but also the Vulkan API to render a 3D model. Ideally I'd like to use the gtkmm C++ wrapper for GTK, and the Vulkan C++ API.
What ways do I currently have to do this?
I know that I can get a Vulkan context using SDL2 and other similar low level libraries, and I can get an OpenGL context using GTK. But I haven't found resources for combining these two approaches.
To start, I'm not limited to developing on or targeting any particular Linux distribution. Although any insights into why a particular environment makes this easier or more difficult are appreciated.
Edit:
I'm aware of this question: What is the Vulkan equivalent of the GtkGLArea widget (GTK+)?
However, many months have passed since its most recent update. My Google searching does not indicate that the state of affairs has changed, but I would like to be proven wrong. In addition, I intentionally phrased my question more broadly. I don't necessarily want just a GtkVulkanArea widget. I want to know of any valid way to combine Gtk and Vulkan. For example, is it possible to embed a Gtk event loop and widgets in an SDL2 window? What about the other way around? Again, my Google searching has not been very helpful, and I hope someone knowledgeable on this topic will answer.
V7R1M0 is the version I see in spool files generated in the IBM i server used in my company. Does this version support fully free RPG flavor where even F and D specs can be written in free format? How can this be found out? I have copy pasted few of fully free code samples the available on the internet and it gets highlighted in error which suggests it doesn't work.
Please note that no RDI is available in my company. So this was done in SEU. I have researched a lot about this but there is no definitive guide that can confirm this point
SEU does not now nor will it ever support anything released after v6.1. If you want to use features of RPG released in the last 7 years you either have to turn off syntax validation in SEU, or use RDi. There are other options of course, see What is the best IDE to use for programming in RPGILE for the AS/400 ? Can you connect to a 400 using Visual Studios IDE? for more info. Note that only RDi is guaranteed to support the most recent RPG developments. Third party editors may lag behind while developers determine how to support new features. In addition, some of these editors only support source code in the IFS.
According to swift.org/migration-guide, dispatch and related functions have a great new swift interface (e.g. dispatch_async -> DispatchQueue.async). Also other foundation types have been added like Data and Date value types instead of NSData and NSDate.
However, on the open source version of swift3 (developer preview 1) on linux, ubuntu15.10 the compiler rejects all of these changes. In fact, looking at the open source version of swift and swift-corelibs on github, I don't actually see any of these changes. Since it will compile on XCode developer preview, this has lead me to believe either: I am doing something wrong on Linux or these changes have been made in the Apple branch and not the open source branch. Can anyone verify this and if the latter is the case, and if so, how do we know what changes will be in the Apple branch vs the open source branch?
As of Swift 3.0 release version GCD is available on Linux with simple import Dispatch, which is slightly confusing as it's not needed on iOS/macOS, where Dispatch module is imported by default.
Thanks to Brad Larson for finding the Foundation and Dispatch overlays in the source. According to swift.org:
SDK Overlays: Specific to Apple platforms, the SDK overlays
(implemented in stdlib/public/SDK) provide Swift-specific additions
and modifications to existing Objective-C frameworks to improve their
mapping into Swift. In particular, the Foundation overlay provides
additional support for interoperability with Objective-C code.
tl;dr anything in these folders are Apple platforms only. Still not sure why they restricted the Dispatch overlays to Apple Platforms since libdispatch is also open source and targeting linux, but this answers my initial question.
Edit: was able to confirm via swift mailing lists that the dispatch overlays do have some reliance on objective-c runtime. There is work to get them implemented for non-Darwin platforms but no guarantees on timing.
Check out the Swift 3 Evolution Github page. They list all the proposed changes to the language, and separate them by those that have been implemented and those that have not. Proposal SE-0088: Modernize libdispatch for Swift 3 naming is on the "yet to be implemented list" as are many other changes.
As far as Data and Date are concerned, I cannot say, since I believe that is part of the upcoming Core Libraries, and I have not yet been able to look at those in great detail yet. Perhaps you might check the Swift Core-Libs Github page as well, though the status page references work done on NSData and NSDate, no mention of the newer data types.
I'm a little late with this question, but better late than never. I've been using Visual Studio 6.0 since it came out, but recently switched to VS 2013 on a new PC.
I've gotten my projects to build under 2013, but the resulting executables it produces are consistently bigger than VS6.0 produced. I've seen a similar thread on here about that happening in the transition from VS2008 to VS2010, and the comments and suggestions there all seem to attribute the change to changes in MFC libraries that are statically linked in. But my projects are straight C code. No C++, let alone MFC. And the 'Use of MFC' option on my project is set to "Use Standard Windows Libraries" (presumably set by the import tool that generated the 2013-compatible project). The only non-stadard library it uses is wsock32.lib.
The extra size isn't a killer, but it's a significant relative to the size of the whole app. My biggest .exe goes from 980Kb to 1.3Mb - about a 35% increase in size to an app whose small size was a selling point (i.e. install this tiny app and you have access to all of our goodies). That's without debugging info - the increase on the debug version is even more - but I don't really care about that.
Any ideas how to strip out the new cruft - or even to know what it is?
This is a good manual how to make your binaries smaller.
Basic ideas are the following:
Don't forget about Release mode
Declare #define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN
Dynamically link to the C++ runtime
Compile the executable without debugging information
Compile with /O1, an 'optimize for size' flag
Remove iostream and fstream headers, use low level instead if possible
Typically you generate a MAP file on both systems, and figure out the sections that cause the largest contributions.
Anton's answer reminds me: first check if they are both linked the same way (both static or both dynamic, otherwise it is apples and oranges)
I've never been a big fan of MFC, but that's not really the point. I read that Microsoft is due to release a new version of MFC in 2010 and it really struck me as odd - I thought MFC was dead (no ill intention, I really did).
Is is MFC used for new developments? If so, whats the benefit? I couldn't imagine it having any benefit over something such as C# (or even just c++ using Win32 APIs for that matter).
There is a ton of code out there using MFC. I see these questions all the time is this still used is that still used the answer is yes. I work in a very large organization which still employs hundreds of people who write in cobol. If it has ever been used in the enterprise it will continue to be used until there is no more hardware to support it, then some company will pay someone to write an emulator so that the old code will still work.
The navy still uses ships with computers with magnetic cores for memory and I'm sure they have people to work on them. Technology once created can never not be supported. its a bit of the case of Deus ex machina where large organizations aren't completely sure what their system do and have such an overriding sense of fear of brining the enterprise to its knees they have no desire to try out you new fangled technologies(BTW we pay IBM for best effort support on OS2).
Also mfc is a perfectly acceptable solution for windows development given it is an object model which wraps the System API which is pretty much all that most people get out of .net.
As an addendum and since this question is up for a bounty this is a quote from MS regarding mfc in VS 11
In every release we need to balance our investment across the various areas of the product. However, we still believe that MFC is the most fully-featured library for building native desktop applications. We are fully committed to supporting and maintaining MFC at a high level of quality. Here’s a short list of some of the issues that we fixed in MFC for Visual Studio 11:
Here is the link if you want to read the full post
Coolness does not factor in choosing the technology for a new system. Yes if you are a student or want to play around you choose whatever you want.
But in the real world each technology has advantages and drawbacks. A year ago one of the teams started a new project, it was decided that it will be done in MFC.
The reason is very simple: they have to use windows api a lot for low level operations with the printer, internet explorer and god knows what else.
C# was not even in the game, the decision was made between MFC and QT, both had the needed functionality, both could easily integrate the low level functionality, the only difference was that some team members already had MFC experience, so they didn't have to waste time and money with trainings.
Let's suppose they choose C# and WPF:
-1 You have to wrap all native C++ and ASM code in a DLL (ouch this can be painful, instead of coding you write wrappers).
-1 You probably need two teams now, one for the ui one for the winapi stuff. It is very unlikely that you'll find a lot of people able to write both C# and winapi stuff. Agreed that either way you need someone to make the interface pretty (programmers usually suck at this and they cost more) but at least with C++ only code, there is no more wait time between two teams, need a ui modification, no problem I don't have to wait for the ui designer, he will make it pretty later.
+1 You can write the UI code in C# and WPF, let's say the UI development is faster, but the UI is only 1/4 of the project, so the total gain is probably very small.
-1 Performance degradation: for every small operation you can't do in C# you call a external DLL (this is a minor issue since the program runs on 8GB RAM Quad Cores).
So in conclusion: MFC is still used for new development because the requirements and the costs decide the technology for a project and it just so happens that MFC is the best in some cases.
MFC is still used for some new development, and a lot of maintenance development (including inside of Microsoft).
While it can be minutely slower than using the Win32 API directly, the performance loss really is tiny -- rarely as much as a whole percent. Using .NET, the performance loss is considerably greater (in my testing, rarely less than 10%, with 20-30% being typical, and higher still for heavy computation. Just for example, I have a program that does Eigenvector/Eigenvalue computation on fairly large arrays. My original version using C++ and MFC runs one test case in just under a minute on our standard test machine. Some of my coworkers decided it would be cool to re-implement it in C#. Their version takes almost three minutes on the same machine (quad core, 16-gigs of RAM, so no, not "legacy" hardware). I'll admit I haven't looked at their code too closely, so maybe it could be improved, but they're decent coders so a 3:1 improvement strikes me as unlikely.
With MFC, it's also easy to bypass the framework and use the Win32 API directly when/if you want to. With .NET, you can use P/Invoke for that, but it's quite painful by comparison.
MFC has been updated with every release of Visual Studio. It just isn't the headline feature item.
As for new development, yes. It is still used and will continue to be so (even though I, like you, prefer not to). Many organizations made the technology decision years ago and have no reason to change.
I do think you are talking about well-established shops though, folks with more interest in maintaining / enhancing what has been written rather than stay on the cutting edge.
The release of the MFC Feature Pack (one or two years ago, iirc) was the biggest extension of MFC since around 10 years and it gave quite a new boost to MFC development. I guess a lot of companies decided to maintain their legacy applications, push them forward and delevelop new applications on its basis.
For me (as someone who has to maintain a large MFC application) the bigger problem is the decreasing development and support of (Microsoft and third-party) components rather than MFC itself. For instance is porting to 64bit not easy if a lot of old and unsupported pure 32bit Active-X components are assembled in the application.
I did a project last year based on MFC. I'm not sure why MFC was chosen, but it was adequate for making a virtual 3D graphic user interface—a building management security system—with 10 frame per second refresh rate run efficiently on win32-based PCs dating back to the mid-1990s. The executable (which requires only core win32 system DLLs) is less than 400K—not an easy accomplishment with modern tools.
There are advantages to staying away from managed code (maybe you're writing a driver UI, or doing COM).
That and there's tons of MFC code out there. Maybe you work for Company X, and need to use one of the zillion DLLs they've been writing over the last dozen years.
I can think of one commercial software title that benefits from using MFC over C#: Wwise[1]. C++ is an obvious choice for the sound engine, so it makes sense to write the authoring tool in C++ as well. It's both an authoring tool and a sound engine. They could have built the authoring tool in C#, and the sound engine in C++, but if they're debugging a problem with the sound engine that's reproducible through the wwise authoring tool, it's easier for them to see the whole call stack just like that.
I think there's some ways of doing a mixed call stack nowadays, but maybe that wasn't there when they first made Wwise? In any case, using MFC ensured that they wouldn't need a solution to the problem of mixed call stacks. The call stack just works.
[1]Wwise is built on MFC: https://www.audiokinetic.com/fr/library/edge/?source=SDK&id=plugin_frontend_windows.html