Thread: VB vs. C

The code in the Linux kernel demonstrates how to write an operating system from the ground up. There are also office suits, games, and web browser source codes to learn by example. Sorry but I would rather learn and have something to show for it rather than hang my knowledge on a Microsoft interface that looks like crap.

Originally posted by -KEN-
"The right tool for the right job", ever heard that? Now stop bickering, dumbasses.

No, I'm a programmer, not an end user.

>The code in the Linux kernel demonstrates how to write an operating system from the ground up. There are also office suits, games, and web browser source codes to learn by example. Sorry but I would rather learn and have something to show for it rather than hang my knowledge on a Microsoft interface that looks like crap.<

I think you're confusing learning how an o/s works with writing application software for one. Nobody said you had to hang your knowledge on a Microsoft interface. Learning how an o/s works and how to use an API doesn't have to be a mutually exclusive activity.

As I have already attempted to demonstrate, calling something "just an interface" is pointless as everything is more or less "just an interface" to something else. You may not get all the gory details but the WinAPI will give more insight into what the o/s is doing (take a look at something like "Programming Applications for Windows" by Jeffrey Richter), than programming using VB in point and click mode.

And as the giver of clichés has mentioned not everybody is programming Windows to learn what is going on underneath (because either they don't care or already have an idea) so a higher level interface may be more suitable.

I don't think that you understand, and no not everything is an interface. My point is that with Microsoft you are dependant on an interface (Win32), you have no idea of it's implementaton and no control over it. Open source provides many more choices. You have access to the implementation, so therefore you are not dependant on an interface, in addition you have a choice of windows managers, you also have access to source code for high level applications like web browsers, file managers, office suits, email clients, etc. None of this is available for the Microsoft OS.

All software written for the MS OS is dependant on the Win32 interface. Since you have spent all your time memorizing the interface you don't come out with any knowledge of the implementation, you have nothing to show for the time you have invested after they change the interface. It is important to understand the implementation of the software architecture, not just the interface, because you are building upon the constraints of the software architecture, the constraints effect your choice of high level solutions.

In addition it is no easy task to learn and memorize the MS interface (Win32). That is a big reason why they have invented languages like VB and wrappers for "fake C++" like MFC. With .net they are using a framework (aka middleware component) to combine the different high level interfaces of MFC, ATL, VB, COM, etc all of which interoperate with Win32, into one single high level interface called the .net Base Class Library.

There is nothing wrong with building applications on the MS Windows OS, however I am beginning to outgrow the operating system. My knowledge is becomming to extensive. I am not satisfied with being controlled by a vendor. There are a few books that atttempt to describe the Win32 architecture, however even those books can not reveal the implementation details. Not for the OS subsystems, not for the browser, not for he office suites or real time applications, etc. Sure you can learn things using the Microsoft OS however you will outgrow it once you enter topics such as design patterns and software modeling, framework development, etc. Now Microsoft can build almost anything that they want on their OS but nobody else can. I can see this. I want to avoid that dead end.

>and no not everything is an interface

Show me some code that isn't.

>You have access to the implementation, so therefore you are not dependant on an interface<

Ultimately you're dependant on the ISA of the host machine you're developing for (which is an interface).

>in addition you have a choice of windows managers, you also have access to source code for high level applications like web browsers, file managers, office suits, email clients, etc. None of this is available for the Microsoft OS.<

So? If you want to learn how it's done by looking at open source examples nobodies stopping you. This doesn't mean that you're forbidden from learning an API.

>Since you have spent all your time memorizing the interface you don't come out with any knowledge of the implementation

You don't have to spend *all* your time doing anything of the sort. Have you ever used an API?

>It is important to understand the implementation of the software architecture, not just the interface, because you are building upon the constraints of the software architecture, the constraints effect your choice of high level solutions.<

It's useful to have an understanding of what's happening (which is available in documentation provided by MS), it's not necessary to know the exact details. If you only wish to develop in environments where everything is completely transparent then you are going to have limited opportunities.

>you have nothing to show for the time you have invested after they change the interface<

You will become dependent (especially if you don't have an understanding of what is happening), but the fundamentals of the WinAPI have remained the same since Windows 1.0. That's the point of interfaces; they remain constant while the implementation changes. You could reverse this argument by claiming that time spent learning implementation details will be wasted when the underlying architecture becomes obsolete or the o/s is improved/upgraded.

>Sure you can learn things using the Microsoft OS however you will outgrow it once you enter topics such as design patterns and software modelling, framework development, etc<

If you wish to learn how an operating system works then you will be better off looking at something open source or even developing one yourself; but the buzzwords you mention are not tied to the underlying o/s implementation details and are abstract topics.

>Now Microsoft can build almost anything that they want on their OS but nobody else can<

Perhaps you can elaborate on this statement. What are the limitations of the API?

Nothing has changed. You can be dependent on a monopolistic vendor or else you can have freedom to understand the implimentation by choosing open source. That is the bottom line.

I want to see the implimentation details for academic purposes and for enterprise use. I am not going to fool myself into blindly allowing the vendor to dictate every action that is performed on the operating system, and in addition use unfair competitive practices, perhaps even against me (especially if I am sucessful). I think that only unskilled and undertrained developers take the Microsoft OS seriously. Due to it's inception as a consumer OS and underground dealings with OEMs which I could care less about the system is popular, however it is almost totally useless to me for the work that I am doing. It adds no business value, or academic value after a certain point. It is extremely limiting and not to be taken seriously. The only work if any, that can be done on the OS is by being led by Microsofts many varied half baked development environments. It just doesn't work for me, I'm sorry but it doesn't work! The area of knowledge that I am now focusing on is taking me beyond the range of use that I can get out of the Microsoft OS. If you want to continue to use the Microsoft OS than go ahead, I am not stopping you, have fun, but it is useless for me.

Right on, dude. Cheers for the laughs. Are you a Gnubie?

>Only a few months, he had ".NET Crusader" or something as his title and had the M$ flag as his avatar........... <

Yeah, they say knucklehead extremists don't really care about the cause; they're just in it for the fight. Any ideology will suffice as long as it directly opposes another.

Originally posted by billholm
Cmon you guys you shouldn't bash Microsoft that much. After all, she's the only company dedicated in bringing out an OS that will serve useful for the general uneducated public. As progammers, we should understand that. Programmers are supposed to be practical and sensible, not closed-minded.

as programmers we can appreciate secure coding... you think xp is secure lmao try this in windows 2000 and on...

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
for(int i = 0; i < 5 ; i++)    
printf("\t\t\b\b\b");
}

its a simple screen buffer overflow that rebbots the computer... do you think microsoft had the common sense to fix this for the xp version of course not... nah they just trust in the fact their os is closed source and leave insecure code as they go... if ever we live to see the day ms becomes open source i predict about 10,000 bufferoverflows in the first month of the open source

while we are at it... isnt it closed minded to not have open source?