[VO27] - Has been completely re-compiled in Microsoft Visual Studio 7.1
ilias
-
>VO 2.7 Has been completely re-compiled in Microsoft Visual Studio 7.1.
=> {use of updated toolsets}
>Why was this done ?
cause it's obvious ?
> # If Visual Objects was ever to become a .Net product it would have to be up to date and compile with the latest Microsoft compiler. (.Net = Visual Objects 3.0 )
ok
> # By compiling in C 7.1 may coding errors, where pointed out and fixed.
This implies that C5.0 is not able to produce coding-errors-free code.
Or that the only tool to detect coding-errors is the compiler.
This is not true. The are other tools / methods to detect coding
errors.
A solid quality-assurance-process for the VO26 version would have
detected at least some if not all of those bugs / coding-errors.
> # Faster tighter Visual Object product for VO 2.7.
specification missing.
> # Better Memory Management
specification missing.
>
>Visual Objects 2.5c/2.6 was compiled in Visual C 5.0.
ok
>This Microsoft product was release almost 7 years ago, and of course like all things software, Microsoft has done a good job on improving the quality of its compiler.
there is no "of course" with software.
there is no "of course" with Microsoft.
Microsoft has done a "good job" on increasing dependency to their
products. Maybe an excellent job.
>New standard classes in the Microsoft Runtime were now available for managing memory in a standard way.
Theoretical thought:
The memory management used by the initial [VO]core-developers has a
very specific behaviour. The use of the [new, VC7.1 specific]
standard-way memory-managemet may has a negative influence on VO, as
the intention of the [initial] VO-core-developers is lost.
Understand Before Change.
>
>In July of 2002 the GrafX Software Development Team began the monumental task of converting the code from the C5 compiler to the C7 compiler.
"monumental"
This sentence is really exciting.
>Tens of thousands of errors were discovered in the Visual Objects C5 code.
=> {VO26 has tens of thousands of errors}
Did VO26 inherit those errors from VO25xx?
Or did the GrafX developement team add them, whilst trying to gain
control over the source-code?
Maybe many of those errors came due to corrections to the MS product
[C++ Compiler] itself (e.g.: corrections/changes to get closer to the
ANSI C++ Standard).
>Over the course of the next 7 months these errors were corrected,
>and we began to see a more stable VO emerging.
This is around 100 errors (or 'errors') per day [assuming 20.000
errors]
Excellent work...
>Still we faced many problems even though we had the code
>compiling on with the highest warnings set on.
One of GrafX major 'problems' is playing around with
compiler-switches.
[note to readers: if you like to 'impress' with a high amount of
errors , try the compiler switch "/WX"]
>Finally after months of work, VO 2.7 is now in beta.
ok.
>Moving the CAVO 2.6 code to Microsoft Visual Studio 7.1
>was a risky move.
standard risk of using updated toolsets => nothing special
>It would have been much easier to leave the code in C5
>and continue to patch the Visual Objects product, just
>as it had been done in the past.
Then there is another risk.
To be not up-to-date with current state-of-the-art.
>GrafX took a bold step in doing this conversion.
A bold and... "monumental" step !
>All of the time spent in moving Visual Objects 2.7 from C5
>to C7 are not features that you can see or touch, but
>make VO 2.7 the best version of Visual Objects ever.
the transistion from C5 to C7 is... => nothing special.
It happens day by day.
hundres of products.
The difference?
Marketing managers of those products does not state this [totally
obvious] fact.
Except they have nothing else to state.
>The decision to make this costly move was based on GrafX's belief that Visual Objects has a strong future as a development product.
Reading all this text, i doubt that Visual Objects has any future.
-
So Many Code - So Little Time.
Peter Fallon
leaping before you look at its very best...
All you have done here is shown that you have not bothered to keep track of, or reseach the
discussions that have been fairly constant in this group for years now regarding VO's
development (within and without CA).
Moreover, you have obviously never bothered to attend a VO developer's event where you might
actually have a chance to speak to the people doing the hard work. VO development &
improvement has been a hot topic of discussion for years now, and members of the teams have
been at virtually every VO event (Devcon's and CA technicons) to take questions (and give
answers!!).
To be taken seriously, one or both of the above is highly recommended.
Until then, enjoy being on a lot of people's kill lists.
seeya...Pete
Gary Stark
There's but one reason that prevents me from suggesting that Ilias is a moron: he's yet to
achieve that level of intelligence or literacy. And his manners and bearing make Mike Tyson look
like a gentleman and a scholar.
Morons are far more astute than Ilias could ever hope to be, and I really don't want to insult
them by suggesting they're down to his level.
Peter Fallon wrote:
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Peter Fallon
> There's but one reason that prevents me from suggesting that Ilias is a moron: he's yet to
> achieve that level of intelligence or literacy. And his manners and bearing make Mike Tyson look
> like a gentleman and a scholar.
>
> Morons are far more astute than Ilias could ever hope to be, and I really don't want to insult
> them by suggesting they're down to his level.
True. I only responded because I think it was my turn to spit the dummy <g>...
Willie Moore
Well said! <bg>
Regards,
Willie
"Gary Stark" <tas3...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote in message
news:3F3F6E44...@RedbacksWeb.com...
Gary Stark
Willie Moore wrote:
> Gary,
>
> Well said! <bg>
Thanx. <g>
Jamal Assaf
I am glad he's blocked! I don't have to read his BS.
Jamal
"Willie Moore" <wil...@wmconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bhr8gk$312$1...@iocextnews.bls.com...