Difference between C++ and VC++?

Hello there, this is my first post... and I need to make it clear I'm a complete layman in regards to programming. However, I have a keen desire to learn and so that is why I'm here! :)

My first question... what are the differences between C++ and VC++? I wasn't originally aware of any difference, but I have a good friend who's a professional programmer and he told me that actually, they are different - with "using namespace" being an example of one of the differences (apparently it's only used in VC++: a syntax change or something) Also, apparently VC++ doesn't compile to machine code, but rather MSIL.

I'm really confused, I originally wanted to learn C++ to write my own games, but now I'm at a loss! The tutorial found on this website or any other I've encountered doesn't mention any contrasts between the two - and uses the command "using namespace".

I don't actually know where this question is going ha ha, I suppose I'm trying to ask, should I find a "pure" C++ compiler, and learn to use that instead? What would a professional computer game company use? One thing my friend said was VC++ is good for learning OO progamming - (which I still don't fully understand, along with many other things!).



Thanks for any help you may have.



Jack

using namespace is completely standard C++. The basic idea: C++ is a language, VC++ is a compiler for that language made by Microsoft. There will be compiler extensions (bits that a compiler accepts that aren't part of the language) for just about any compiler (gcc has its extensions, VC++ has its extensions). "using namespace" isn't one of them.

I have no idea about the exact process VC++ uses. I wouldn't expect MSIL to be part of the compilation process for C++ (maybe for C#), but it could happen I suppose.

I'm not sure what your friend has been smoking...

C++ is a language.
Visual C++ is a specific compiler for the C++ language.

"using namespace" is part of the C++ language.

VC++ compiles to machine code.

VC++ is Microsoft Visual Studio that will allow you to program in C++, but it is NOT a good learning platform just from seeing what it can do, you will need to learn normal C++ first, so that something like Visual Studio would enhance your abilities and not prevent you from knowing how to program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

I'm not sure what your friend has been smoking...

C++ is a language.
Visual C++ is a specific compiler for the C++ language.

"using namespace" is part of the C++ language.

VC++ compiles to machine code.

---

Ha ha, he gave up smoking a while back...

But anyway, after speaking to my friend again, and finding out some stuff on the internet, actually they ARE different. As one person said:

"So if you want to learn C++, you have two choices: Learn C++/CLI, which limits you to a MS-only language which yes, generates MSIL instead of native machine code, and requires .NET to run, and generally isn't worth the bother because if you're going to take a dependency on .NET anyway, why not write in C#?"

Also, bearing in mind C++ is 20+ years-old, and so before OO, and therefore before namespaces.

Anyway, I seem to have found what I was looking for, but thanks for the help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

"So if you want to learn C++, you have two choices: Learn C++/CLI, which limits you to a MS-only language which yes, generates MSIL instead of native machine code, and requires .NET to run, and generally isn't worth the bother because if you're going to take a dependency on .NET anyway, why not write in C#?"

---

C++/CLI is your VC++. And then, for that matter, what was your second choice?

EDIT: Found the original here. And I think that's a pretty good answer.

EDIT EDIT: I was ignoring the bit about namespaces, because anyone who actually believes what you typed is beyond saving, but for the record: no C++ is not "before namespaces".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

But anyway, after speaking to my friend again, and finding out some stuff on the internet, actually they ARE different. As one person said:

"So if you want to learn C++, you have two choices: Learn C++/CLI, which limits you to a MS-only language which yes, generates MSIL instead of native machine code, and requires .NET to run

---

You need to make up your mind whether you are talking about "VC++" or C++/CLI ;) The trouble is that "VC++" is not very specific: maybe you're talking about a Microsoft compiler for C++ (MSVC), or maybe you're talking about C++ with MSVC specific language extensions, or as it turns out... maybe you're talking about C++/CLI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

Also, bearing in mind C++ is 20+ years-old, and so before OO, and therefore before namespaces.

---

It is true that C++ is more than two decades old. It is also true that namespaces were only introduced maybe a decade after the first C++ implementation. However, as has been stated, namespaces are part of standard C++. Furthermore, the statement that C++ was invented before OO is obviously false. There is also the implication that namespaces are a consequence of OO: such an implication is also false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

Ha ha, he gave up smoking a while back...

But anyway, after speaking to my friend again, and finding out some stuff on the internet, actually they ARE different. As one person said:

"So if you want to learn C++, you have two choices: Learn C++/CLI, which limits you to a MS-only language which yes, generates MSIL instead of native machine code, and requires .NET to run, and generally isn't worth the bother because if you're going to take a dependency on .NET anyway, why not write in C#?"

Also, bearing in mind C++ is 20+ years-old, and so before OO, and therefore before namespaces.

Anyway, I seem to have found what I was looking for, but thanks for the help.

---

No program I've ever written with VC++ has ever needed .NET to be installed.
You can tell it to write MSIL code instead of machine code, but I always compile to machine code.

I don't know if namespaces were part of the original (pre-standard) C++ compiler, but they're definitely in the C++ standard. As for it being before OO, I'm pretty sure even the pre-standard C++ had classes, otherwise it would just be C.

This appears to be turning into more of a debate than the help I was looking for.

But just for the record: C++ isn't an OO language as it is known today. Any use of managed code, in any language - be it C#, VB or VC++ will compile down to MSIL.

More is the question of when it is appropriate to use VC++, and why professional programmers in general seem to avoid the VC++ compiler.

But as no one seems able to answer my original question, I have decided to learn assembler instead. No better way to get down to machine code, then to write with it! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

But just for the record: C++ isn't an OO language as it is known today.

---

No, C++ is an OO language. Modern C++ makes use of "multi-paradigm programming", and OO is certainly one of the programming paradigms involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

More is the question of when it is appropriate to use VC++, and why professional programmers in general seem to avoid the VC++ compiler.

---

Until you have defined what exactly you mean by "VC++", this "question" is futile. Furthermore, I was not aware that "professional programmers in general seem to avoid the VC++ compiler".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

But as no one seems able to answer my original question

---

That is not very fair: your original question is not well specified, because as I said, "VC++" is not well defined. If you mean to compare standard C++ to C++ with Microsoft compiler extensions, then we certainly can help you (though I wonder how much good that will do when you do not even know C++ in the first place).

I suppose the fault lies with me - it's very difficult for someone just starting to program to grasp the different concepts of C++ as there seems to be no set definitive - I'm probably making generalisations. From what I'm aware of, the original C++ wasn't OO in the sense that modern C++ is. It was not possible to write a pure OO program with it.

As for VC++, I am simply referring to, as you put it, Microsoft's compiler extensions; the Visual Express compilers. When I said professional programmers seem to avoid it, I meant it in the sense VC++ compiles down to MSIL, or parts of it anyway - and so programmers wanting to use .NET would choose C# over VC++.

I was being a bit sarcastic with my last remark. I think I should change my question to - what is best for a novice programmer wanting to learn sound principles and disciplines. Where should I start?

Again, VC++ is usually the "name" of the Microsoft C++ compiler. That is, a compiler for C++, not C++/CLI, not VB, not C#, etc. Pure 100% C++.
Modern C++ has evolved a lot since its original implementation, of course, but I don't see what that to do with anything. Modern C++ is a very powerful OOP language, among other things. You won't find much you can in other languages that you cannot do in C++.

And the last question is still too vague for us to answer (given your initial question). What exactly do you want to do? Do you want to learn a specific language? Do you want to know what the best language is for a given task? That should be the first thing to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

I suppose the fault lies with me - it's very difficult for someone just starting to program to grasp the different concepts of C++ as there seems to be no set definitive

---

No problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

From what I'm aware of, the original C++ wasn't OO in the sense that modern C++ is. It was not possible to write a pure OO program with it.

---

This depends on what you mean by "pure OO". OOP can be used even in C, which does not have any native support for inheritance and polymorphism. Yet, as far as I know, inheritance and polymorphism support was provided from the earliest versions of C++, so in that sense it has always been possible "to write a pure OO program with it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

As for VC++, I am simply referring to, as you put it, Microsoft's compiler extensions; the Visual Express compilers. When I said professional programmers seem to avoid it, I meant it in the sense VC++ compiles down to MSIL, or parts of it anyway - and so programmers wanting to use .NET would choose C# over VC++.

---

You might want to read Stroustrup's answer to the FAQ What do you think of C++/CLI? Now, the compiler extensions that I was talking about are those that are of a much smaller scale: they add just a few language features, and the resulting program would not be compiled to MSIL. C++/CLI involves extending C++ on a much larger scale. Either way, there is a common base of standard C++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

I think I should change my question to - what is best for a novice programmer wanting to learn sound principles and disciplines. Where should I start?

---

Personally, I would suggest that you start by learning Python, and then use Python to develop programming problem solving skills. On the other hand, if you are interested in learning C++, then I would suggest that you work through Glassborow's You Can Do It! or Koenig and Moo's Accelerated C++: you would learn standard C++ this way, and again use it to develop programming problem solving skills. If you want to pick up C++/CLI later, this foundation would be beneficial, while not constraining you to something too specific.

Ultimately, it is not just about learning a programming language, but about learning how to program to solve problems (which includes things like learning about data structures and algorithms). I would not be so concerned about the nitty gritty details of language and paradigm differences before you start; once you have something, you can acquire another.

Visual C++ is a compiler, not a language.
C++ is a language, not a compiler.

Comparing C++ to VC++ is like comparing Apples to Apple Pies.

And again, VC++ CAN compile to MSIL or it can compile to machine code; it just depends on what compiler settings you use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

And again, VC++ CAN compile to MSIL or it can compile to machine code; it just depends on what compiler settings you use.

---

Honestly, I think it's better to separate that claim into languages.
C++ compiles to native code. Period. VC++ is the compiler for C++.
C++/CLI (another language) compiles to MSIL. Period. Another compiler in the Visual Studio toolset does this compilation. Regardless if it's the same "compiler", they're still two different languages, so no mere "setting" changes this behavior. The setting switches languages.

It seems that there is indeed a mix-up of two (or more) completely different languages. When people talk about MSVC's extensions to the C++ language, I suppose they mean things where it differs from the letter of the language specification. For example, rvalues binding to non-const references:

Code:

---

void foo(int& i);

int main()
{
    foo(10); //compiles with VC++ as an extension
};

---

Quote:

---

C++ compiles to native code. Period.

---

Are you quite sure in it. A language specification describes what various language constructs do. However, does it specify what it compiles to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anon

Are you quite sure in it. A language specification describes what various language constructs do. However, does it specify what it compiles to?

---

If you want to be pedantic, then no. But in an effort to separate the confusion of these two languages, let's say it does.
This holds true for Windows and Linux, at the very least.

Hmm, I think things have become much more confusing than they should be!

I originally wanted to learn a language to write games. I had heard C++ was best for this as it's more powerful - however, I then heard and read that actually, VC++ (the compiler that I'm using), compiles to only MSIL - so any benefits are lost. Although I have been told by people here that VC++ can indeed compile down to machine code, so I'm completely confused! I had also heard that the VC++ compiler will accept commands that aren't in the C++ language - again this has been refuted by people here.

I would like to learn programming: a language in which I can write games. I need to start somewhere that teaches me good habits and practices, but can build me up to writing a game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

I originally wanted to learn a language to write games. I had heard C++ was best for this as it's more powerful - however, I then heard and read that actually, VC++ (the compiler that I'm using), compiles to only MSIL - so any benefits are lost. Although I have been told by people here that VC++ can indeed compile down to machine code, so I'm completely confused! I had also heard that the VC++ compiler will accept commands that aren't in the C++ language - again this has been refuted by people here.

---

Let me break it down:
- There are two languages: C++ (native) and C++/CLI (MSIL).
- Visual Studio supports both languages.
- What language you use can be chosen by a setting, a switch (C++ is default).
- All C++ compilers usually have some C++ extensions, akin to anon showed (nothing to do with C++/CLI).

Quote:

---

I would like to learn programming: a language in which I can write games. I need to start somewhere that teaches me good habits and practices, but can build me up to writing a game...

---

You want to make a game. Choose C++ first (NOT C++/CLI). In Visual Studio, use the wizard to create a new Win32 project. Keep your file endings as .cpp (default). Program away your game.
Visual Studio will automatically compile your code into a native executable.
Now all you have to do is learn game programming.

Questions?

#include Jack, I am new here as well, as much as I know and am following the totorials on this website I have concluded that C++ is the language to learn for programing as it will continue to evolve.

You should download Code:Blocks like instructed on this website, follow the instructions in the totorials using Code:Blocks and not something else.

Now I am sure Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate would be a very nice thing to have but it costs $12,000
to buy one of there other limited versions would be a waist of money.
Visual Studio Products - 2010 Ultimate, Premium & Professional - Microsoft Visual Studio

Code:Blocks is free and good to learn on, Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 products will not allow you learn what is needed to convert your visions of software to code.

Code:Blocks__It would be like teaching a child multipication and showing them how multipication actually works so thy can use it in any fashion they want, and implement it to construction, farming, check book balancing.

Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate__This would be like trying to teach a child mathimatic short cuts eg. multiples of 11 to make him APEAR to be more mathematically inteligent than his own math teacher, and getting the answer to any multiple of 11 faster than anyone else is able to, but in reallity he is slower and dumber than them all, he will eventually come to a math problem that he is unable to solve because he does not know how math works...eg...

13 x 11 = 143 // 1 + 3 = 4 put the 4 in between the 1 and the 3
72 x 11 = 792 // 7 + 2 = 9 put the 9 in between the 7 and the 2
78 x 11 = 858 // 7 + 8 =15 put the 5 in the midle and carry the 1 to add to 7 ( 7 + 1 = 8 )

Now if you were to teach math secrets like above to someone that already knows how to do math the hard way on paper, this will now ENHANCE his ability and dramatically increase his speed thus actually making him superior to others.

If you learn a different programing language it will be a mistake, learn C++ first and use Code:Blocks, learn at your own pace, so that you dont miss NOTHING at all. Then later on buy Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 and go out there and woop some asses.

Code:Blocks is the way to go for a beginner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rct. Tsoul

#include Jack, I am new here as well, as much as I know and am following the totorials on this website I have concluded that C++ is the language to learn for programing as it will continue to evolve.

---

Any language will continue to evolve, just so you know.

Quote:

---

You should download Code:Blocks like instructed on this website, follow the instructions in the totorials using Code:Blocks and not something else.

---

This is nonsense. You are to use whatever you want.

Quote:

---

Now I am sure Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate would be a very nice thing to have but it costs $12,000
to buy one of there other limited versions would be a waist of money.
Visual Studio Products - 2010 Ultimate, Premium & Professional - Microsoft Visual Studio

---

There's also a free edition: The Express edition. The professional edition is also free to students and the Team System is available for those who have MSDNAA.

Quote:

---

Code:Blocks is free and good to learn on, Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 products will not allow you learn what is needed to convert your visions of software to code.

Code:Blocks__It would be like teaching a child multipication and showing them how multipication actually works so thy can use it in any fashion they want, and implement it to construction, farming, check book balancing.

Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate__This would be like trying to teach a child mathimatic short cuts eg. multiples of 11 to make him APEAR to be more mathematically inteligent than his own math teacher, and getting the answer to any multiple of 11 faster than anyone else is able to, but in reallity he is slower and dumber than them all, he will eventually come to a math problem that he is unable to solve because he does not know how math works...eg...

13 x 11 = 143 // 1 + 3 = 4 put the 4 in between the 1 and the 3
72 x 11 = 792 // 7 + 2 = 9 put the 9 in between the 7 and the 2
78 x 11 = 858 // 7 + 8 =15 put the 5 in the midle and carry the 1 to add to 7 ( 7 + 1 = 8

Now if you were to teach math secrets like above to someone that already knows how to do math the hard way on paper, this will now ENHANCE his ability and dramatically increase his speed thus actually making him superior to others.

If you learn a different programing language it will be a mistake, learn C++ first and use Code:Blocks, learn at your own pace, so that you dont miss NOTHING at all. Then later on buy Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 and go out there and woop some asses.

Code:Blocks is the way to go for a beginner.

---

What do you base these facts on?
I am tempted to say this is rubbish, but I am open to why you think this way.
Code::Blocks and Visual Studio are two different IDEs and nothing else. They have nothing to do with the language.

If you remeber learning in school as a child, you need to learn HOW IT WORKS not just how to do it. Yea you can teach a child how to do math and then show him how to use a calculator to do his homework. The child needs to first memorize how to add & subtract 1 - 10 and also explain 0 is nothing, that will help him later when you teach multipication. They need to first learn how to count using there fingers, 3 fingers and 4 fingers, now count them, they will then see they have 7 fingers, AND THEY WILL KNOW IT IS CORRECT because they can see it for themself as real as life.

As you can see above my spelling and grammer sucks, and still to this day it sucks, back in 1987 Radio Shack had a electronic dictionary and spell checker for $145, I jump all over that and did not hesitate to buy it, I only was thinking about how much time it would save me doing homework not having to look up definitions in a dictionary and right down the definition of that word on paper to turn in, now all I did was type it into the electronic dictionary and then just copy it to paper, now I cant spell above a 3 grade level because I failed to learn the way they told me to, I did it my own way, now I am dependant on spell & grammer checkers, THAT IS why you are picking on me now, just looking how I right in these posts and you know I am just typing it JUST THE WAY IT SOUNDS you know my edjucation level is lower than yours, and yes I am sure it is, but I can say that math is second nature to me thus making these totorials very usefull for learning, and by using Code:Blocks I can follow the totorials and later on the books step by step because the totorials assume you installed Code:Block, and installed it into C:\Program Files\CodeBlocks

I understand that part, but I fail to see how this relates to Visual Studio vs Code::Blocks.

Ahh, thank you. That's cleared up a lot.

In terms of native and MSIL C++ - other than one compiling down to machine code and the other not - are there any other differences? Be it syntax or otherwise. Also, what is the difference between the win32 project and console application? (I've been using the console application so far).


Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

I understand that part, but I fail to see how this relates to Visual Studio vs Code::Blocks.

---

You cant follow a totorial for Code:Blocks using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010, first because the writer of the totorials assumes you are using Code:Blocks, installation folder should be as specified in the install totorial, NOT A DIFFERENT FOLDER.
C:\Program Files\CodeBlocks

I dont have Microsoft Visual Studio 2010, but I am positive that you cannot use its totorials using Code:Blocks eg....
Take a photograph of the 3D object you want in your program, then import and paste.

I do intend to buy Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate, I wont need a DEV team, I can then make what ever I want for Windows, even an entire game within a mater of about 6 week, maybe less, and still have time to goto work, and make a living. The following level below took me 6 weeks and it not even finished on only 1 level using the crap SDK released for the game, Visual Studio is not just a C++ editor, it is like having a team of MIT graduates skilled in everything doing what you say, 3D modeling and animation and texturing, export capability, I am sure something like what I made below would only take a few hours at most on Visual Studio, I was sick and taking time off work is what even allowed me the time to do it in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrMyC...layer_embedded

You are very clearly insane, a troll, and a liar.

I have to ask, where did you escape from?

I'm only afraid you may be somewhere near my state.

Soma

O_o

I've got to say, Microsoft's marketing department truly deserves a standing ovation.

Soma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

Ahh, thank you. That's cleared up a lot.

In terms of native and MSIL C++ - other than one compiling down to machine code and the other not - are there any other differences? Be it syntax or otherwise. Also, what is the difference between the win32 project and console application? (I've been using the console application so far).


Thanks

---

The MSIL, eg C++/CLI, is a .NET language. It can access Microsoft's .NET Framework (along with specific new syntax for the entire CLI features), and basically, that's it. Use it if you want to able to use the .NET Framework and C++ (ie interop).
The difference between the win32 project and console application is the black console window. It won't appear if you select a win32 project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rct. Tsoul

You cant follow a totorial for Code:Blocks using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010, first because the writer of the totorials assumes you are using Code:Blocks, installation folder should be as specified in the install totorial, NOT A DIFFERENT FOLDER.
C:\Program Files\CodeBlocks

I dont have Microsoft Visual Studio 2010, but I am positive that you cannot use its totorials using Code:Blocks eg....
Take a photograph of the 3D object you want in your program, then import and paste.

---

What says you cannot use Visual Studio tutorials?
For that matter, the IDE has nothing to do with the language. You can follow just any language tutorial without worries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

If you want to be pedantic, then no. But in an effort to separate the confusion of these two languages, let's say it does.
This holds true for Windows and Linux, at the very least.

---

No, it doesn't. It holds true for most if not all of the major compilers existing for both platforms.
It's quite feasible (and probably has been done) for example to write a C++ compiler that runs on Windows and Linux and output Java classfiles (or whatever, say an XBox or Wii).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rct. Tsoul

in reallity he is slower and dumber than them all, he will eventually come to a math problem that he is unable to solve because he does not know how math works...eg...

Now if you were to teach math secrets like above to someone that already knows how to do math the hard way on paper, this will now ENHANCE his ability and dramatically increase his speed thus actually making him superior to others.

If you learn a different programing language it will be a mistake, learn C++ first and use Code:Blocks, learn at your own pace, so that you dont miss NOTHING at all. Then later on buy Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 and go out there and woop some asses.

---

That's crazy. You are still using an IDE to manage the compiler for you. What's the difference? If you really want to "miss nothing" and "learn to do it on paper", don't use an IDE at all (a lot of people, inc. beginners, do not). You use a text editor and a command line compiler. You don't need anything else.

If you are already happy with Code::Blocks of course stick with it, but why you would believe anyone is going to learn more about "the real process" that way I dunno.

there is no law around for forcing someone to use a specific item or
application. a programmer has the right of choosing his own Ide. a
tutorial (if even close to standard levels) will work with all Ides with
just a little modification. someone can recommend an Ide or something
but not force someone new to the scenes to use the recommended
item by that someone.

by the way, i think this thread should be in the
tech-board or the general-discussions board.
since there is not even a single line of code in
this whole thread....

If the thread is about C++, so rightfully it should be in the C++ board.
Of course, the discussion has touched some other points as well (most notable C++/CLI), but overall, it's still about C++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

My first question... what are the differences between C++ and VC++?

<snip>

I don't actually know where this question is going ha ha, I suppose I'm trying to ask, should I find a "pure" C++ compiler, and learn to use that instead? What would a professional computer game company use? One thing my friend said was VC++ is good for learning OO progamming - (which I still don't fully understand, along with many other things!).

---

Well, you know what C++ is, I hope. The other is basically an IDE/compiler suite that happens to have a history of problems with maintaining standard-compliance and platform-independance. Just to be safe, I'd go with something open-source, like Code::Blocks or Mingw Gcc, personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rct. Tsoul

I do intend to buy Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate, I wont need a DEV team, I can then make what ever I want for Windows, even an entire game within a mater of about 6 week, maybe less, and still have time to goto work, and make a living. The following level below took me 6 weeks and it not even finished on only 1 level using the crap SDK released for the game, Visual Studio is not just a C++ editor, it is like having a team of MIT graduates skilled in everything doing what you say, 3D modeling and animation and texturing, export capability, I am sure something like what I made below would only take a few hours at most on Visual Studio, I was sick and taking time off work is what even allowed me the time to do it in the first place.

---

First, in response to this, I would like to echo exactly what phantomotap already stated:

You are very clearly insane, a troll, and a liar.

Second: Visual Studio 2010 is not like having a team of MIT graduates at your side, and if you don't know how to program you won't get an ounce of a game complete.

Third: a large majority of MIT graduates could probably care less about Visual Studio. I bet you a cookie that (at least for their research projects) most of 'em use Linux.

Fourth: MIT graduate != awesome person who can do 3D modeling and animation

Fifth: If Visual Studio was as as amazing and so i-will-do-everything-for-you as you claim it to be, I'd have roughly 78 blockbuster games out on the market by now, and I'd be filthy rich. (Don't ask my how I calculated the number 78, as it should be evident from your post).

I have another question. Apparently, to access graphics in C++, it's necessary to reference to .NET... however, this won't allow the program to compile down to machine code.

Is there any way around this?

Also, what would be necessary to produce the sort of graphics you see on the old 32-bit games. Roughly Dreamcast / PS / GBA style. Could OpenGL or DirectX produce such graphics?


Please excuse my ignorance!

Quote:

---

I have another question. Apparently, to access graphics in C++, it's necessary to reference to .NET... however, this won't allow the program to compile down to machine code.

---

Access graphics in C++? Oh, no, that's the job of a graphics library. And there's no need to reference .NET anyways - if you did, how would games for linux exist? As far as libraries go, personally I use Allegro. But I guess SDL, SFML, etc. are pretty good too. You might try looking them up. There's really no need to go down to OpenGL/DirectX anymore.

But wait just a minute... I'm getting ahead of myself. I ought to give the "learn your language well before attempting game programming" lecture.
So, here goes: learn your language well, then go to game programming. Work with console i/o, make text-based games, try your hand with structs and classes and whatnot, and learn the nuances of c - there are plenty to go around. It's going to take time, but you've got to start somewhere. You can't just go into calculus class your first day of high school and expect to understand it; sure, the teacher can teach you, and you can figure out how to get a derivative, but you won't understand why, or how, or even what you're doing. That's dangerous territory. Same goes for programming. Get the dirty work done now, and relish in your new knowledge as you move on to the sexier realm of game programming.

Hope it's not too much of a downer, it usually is for budding programmers. But games aren't god-awful expensive these days for no reason - they take a lot of time and effort.

Quote:

---

I have another question. Apparently, to access graphics in C++, it's necessary to reference to .NET... however, this won't allow the program to compile down to machine code.

---

There are several graphics libraries out there that are not .NET dependent. bernt already stated many of them. SDL is my favorite.

Quote:

---

There's really no need to go down to OpenGL/DirectX anymore.

---

That, however, is incorrect. Those are the prime libraries out there for 3D graphics, so you had better "go down" to OpenGL/DirectX if you want to do 3D. But all those other libraries are great for 2D graphics. They get the job done, and they do it well.

Quote:

---

Those are the prime libraries out there for 3D graphics, so you had better "go down" to OpenGL/DirectX if you want to do 3D.

---

Well, there's Ogre3d, Irrlicht, Panda3D, G3D... I could go on if you wanted me to.
And the fact is that they serve the same purpose as SDL - namely, they provide abstraction from OS and the user's choice between OpenGL/DirectX, and they are well-programmed and convenient. You wouldn't use OpenGL directly to implement a 2D game because you can do the same thing in SDL. Why use OpenGL (directly) for 3D when you can do the same thing in, for example, Ogre3D?

And I guess I ought to explain my choice of words - "go down" referred to going to a low-level library (in this case, OpenGL as compared to any of the aforementioned 3D libraries).

Ah, I actually meant without using a graphics library. Say if I wanted to apply something a little more stylish than the console for my very simple programs - merely as a way of experimenting without delving into the more complicated libraries. Is C++ not able to do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernt

Hope it's not too much of a downer, it usually is for budding programmers.

---

Oh, I'm not put down at all. I'm really enjoying learning C++! Funnily enough I seem to find it easier to grasp than C#...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #include Jack

Ah, I actually meant without using a graphics library. Say if I wanted to apply something a little more stylish than the console for my very simple programs - merely as a way of experimenting without delving into the more complicated libraries. Is C++ not able to do that?

---

Maybe you mean a GUI? Of course that is not the same as "what would be necessary to produce the sort of graphics you see on the old 32-bit games" -- in which case you have two choices:

1) use an existing graphics library
2) write your own graphics library....

If you thot the first one was "complicated", the second one may seem "literally impossible".

Any graphics or GUI basically boils down to a library. C++ does not have inbuilt capability for creating these things with mere code.
You will need a library for graphics or GUI and that usually means learning how to use the library, too.
As for 3D, usually OpenGL and DirectX are the APIs to go for. This is true for the most advanced of games anyway, since I doubt all other libraries support all of the advanced features. But for smaller projects, sure.

If you have a non-express version of Visual Studio, you can use MFC.
You can also use raw Win32 API calls.
I'm sure there are plenty of other libraries you can use too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

If you have a non-express version of Visual Studio, you can use MFC.

---

Not a good choice, IMO. MFC was a poorly executed attempt to C++-ify the Win32 API. I'd go with something like wxWidgets, Gtk, or .NET, personally...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

Not a good choice, IMO. MFC was a poorly executed attempt to C++-ify the Win32 API. I'd go with something like wxWidgets, Gtk, or .NET, personally...

---

Yeah, I avoid MFC like the plague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

Not a good choice, IMO. MFC was a poorly executed attempt to C++-ify the Win32 API. I'd go with something like wxWidgets, Gtk, or .NET, personally...

---

Maybe, but it's the de-facto standard for C and C++ based Windows applications so it's a good idea to have at least a passing familiarity with it if you're (planning to) work in the field of Windows application development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

Not a good choice, IMO. MFC was a poorly executed attempt to C++-ify the Win32 API. I'd go with something like wxWidgets, Gtk, or .NET, personally...

---

MFC is evolving again. Granted, it's old, but it's still very easy to create Windows applications with. Does Gtk and wxWidgets come with a wizard to bind components to variables?

if pure win32 api didnt exist, wxWidget was destroyed, .NET was stolen
and nobody has access to .NET anymore, then MFC would be a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraKing227

if pure win32 api didnt exist, wxWidget was destroyed, .NET was stolen
and nobody has access to .NET anymore, then MFC would be a choice.

---

If Win32 API didn't exist, Windows wouldn't exist. :p

Quote:

---

MFC is evolving again. Granted, it's old, but it's still very easy to create Windows applications with. Does Gtk and wxWidgets come with a wizard to bind components to variables?

---

If you're going to be creating a Windows GUI application, use .NET. Whether you use C++ or C# doesn't matter....just use .NET! WPF has done wonders for Windows GUI application development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Does Gtk and wxWidgets come with a wizard to bind components to variables?

---

You are talking about a GUI used to create a GUI, I believe there are such things for gtk, yeah. Certainly there are things like glade that allow you to do it using an XML like syntax, meaning you barely have to code anything at all if you don't want to. Not sure if that is really the route anyone wants to take if they are intent on being a much of a developer, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidP

If you're going to be creating a Windows GUI application, use .NET. Whether you use C++ or C# doesn't matter....just use .NET! WPF has done wonders for Windows GUI application development.

---

dot crap can go crash & burn.
Nothing wrong with MFC if you want to do it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

dot crap can go crash & burn.

---

Hey, that .CRAP just happens to be one of the most elegantly designed offering from Microsoft *ever*! You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Elysia, but I have to wonder if it's based on direct experience or if it's merely an arm-chair observation? I have used .NET, and I can personally attest that GUI building is a more or less painless. And most linux systems support .NET, too, so you can't use *that* for an excuse, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Nothing wrong with MFC if you want to do it that way.

---

Yeah, except that it *only* works for Windows machines. Besides that, MFC is just a thinly-veiled "abstraction" of Win32, and moreover, an absolute kludge to work with. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you or confused. I promise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

Hey, that .CRAP just happens to be one of the most elegantly designed offering from Microsoft *ever*! You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Elysia, but I have to wonder if it's based on direct experience or if it's merely an arm-chair observation? I have used .NET, and I can personally attest that GUI building is a more or less painless. And most linux systems support .NET, too, so you can't use *that* for an excuse, either.

---

Limited experience (yes, I have used it), and strong opinion.

Quote:

---

Yeah, except that it *only* works for Windows machines.

---

It's fine if you only target Windows.

Quote:

---

Besides that, MFC is just a thinly-veiled "abstraction" of Win32, and moreover, an absolute kludge to work with. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you or confused. I promise.

---

This is equivalent to saying that .NET is .CRAP.
Remember, I have worked with MFC. A lot.

Don't belittle MFC. If anyone says .CRAP is good and MFC is bad, I'll just retort with the opposite.
IMO, .CRAP is worst thing ever invented.

Quote:

---

Don't belittle MFC.

---

I never belittled MFC in my previous post, although I will admit I won't go near it. I don't need to.

wxWidgets has done excellently for me when developing non-.NET GUIs, and its openness is attractive.

WPF is a dream to work with compared to pretty much any other GUI platform I have ever worked with. Whenever I have to develop a program that requires a GUI, my first thought is, "Can I use WPF to do this?" It's powerful and elegant. Definitely one of Microsoft's successes.

[EDIT]

I will admit the fact that 50% (or more) of how nice WPF is is probably due to the fact that it is heavily integrated with Visual Studio, and Visual Studio makes it insanely easy to work with.

[/EDIT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidP

WPF is a dream to work with compared to pretty much any other GUI platform I have ever worked with. Whenever I have to develop a program that requires a GUI, my first thought is, "Can I use WPF to do this?" It's powerful and elegant. Definitely one of Microsoft's successes.

---

Now if they'd just put that work into MFC, everyone would be happy.