Can Newton 2.10 be built in VS 2005?

[mancook]

I download Newton 2.00, 2.10 and 2.20. But there are only vs 2003 and vs 2008 solution files in them. Currently I only have Visual Studio 2005 on my host

I double click NewtonWin-2.00\samples\sdkDemos\NewtonDemos_2003.sln and let VS 2005 convert it into VS 2005 solution file. But when building the solution, some errors occurs.

My quesion: Is Newton demo solution only built in VS 2003 or 2008?

But there is only

[Julio Jerez]

Stating with 2.18 there is only 2008 solution.

I never had VS 2005, it is illegal to make a product that can be used comercially with the free copy of VS, it needs to have a legal copy
I only baught 2002 long time ago, then upgraded to 2003 and then to 2008
In the last build I have very difficul ttime making all of the dependencies for wxwidget, and Collada for VS 2003 so I can not longer do it.

I do not know if there are tools that can convert a vs2008 project to a vs2005, I know that cMake does that but I have to build it in CMake lingo, and
WxWxgets and Collada are very big project for me to takle with cMake.

If anyone wnat to make that contribution I will be glad to add it, but makin Make file and prlject file is take too much of my time that I can use on more prductive stuff

for 2.21, vs 2003 project will be also remove for the archive, since it does not work either

Thsoi only appli to teh SDK demos, teh newton library work with all versions of VS stating with VS2002

[martinsm]

it is illegal to make a product that can be used comercially with the free copy of VS, it needs to have a legal copy

You can always use Express Edition of VS to build software that is used commercially. It is completely legal.

[thedmd]

Why not just build only Newton using various compilers? I think we don't need demos get compiled with all possible variations.

[Julio Jerez]

but that's is how it is.
Netwon is buidl with VS 2003 and VS 2008 in windows.
xcode 2.5 and xcode 3.1 for Mac and Iphone
GCC 4.1 for Linux

It is the demos and the SDK utils that aret the problems. But those are all open source.

[thedmd]

This is true. I didn't notice that question was about SDK demos. My bad.

[Carli]

A general question:
why does C++ need an additional .lib for using external dlls?
i don't know any other language that has such linking problems.


@Topic:
You could write your own wrapper that links the library at runtime with "LoadLibrary" and "GetProcAddress".
It's a VS-Version-independend way of linking an external library.

[Stucuk]

C++ doesn't need a lib file to use a DLL. If you are linking to a lib you don't require a DLL.

[Carli]

C++ doesn't need a lib file to use a DLL. If you are linking to a lib you don't require a DLL.

But when I link to a DLL, I will need a .lib (or .a)

[Julio Jerez]

In windows the .lib file used when linking with dll is for the linker to create place holders when linking an executable that use the dll.
Basically it is a dictionary of where the binary code for each function and each variable in the DLL will be placed in memory when the executable is launched.

In Linux and Mac I do not know how the presses work, but that is nothing you should have to worries about, it is just how the designed decided to make it.

In the early days of the window operation system memory on PC was very scarce, and the solution to have mistaking OS running several applications at once, was to reuse the same binary over and over.
That’s how DLL can to be.

Now that memory is no important anymore, DLL are no longer necessary and in fact has become one of Microsoft biggest headache because virus makers use DLL to replace silently functionality in a system.
Also any application can replace a basic functionality of the system, and when you have that happens with many apps, what you get is the problems that people criticize window for.

Now Microsoft is trying to solve those by adding what they call Manifest to each new compiled application, so basically they put a signature into the app, and that way dll with the same signature are loaded only once. It is like the use of DLL in no longer needed for the reason they were created for.

However DLLs are still very good for another reason, they can be use for support, and update of existing app without the end user having to share proprietary source code.

[JernejL]

They are also the universally compatible interface between different programming languages - for example, making a delphi app use say a c++ .lib file involves everything starting with voodoo magic and rainmaking dances to magical mushrooms, where a plain normal dll is easily linked.

[Stucuk]

But when I link to a DLL, I will need a .lib (or .a)

You don't Need to use any lib as anything that has access to the windows API has the ability to dynamically load DLL's. Id also imagine you can statically link to a DLL by using a header, like you do with other languages without the need for a lib. Other languages don't require Package's to be able to link to a DLL, they just require a header.

Now that memory is no important anymore, DLL are no longer necessary and in fact has become one of Microsoft biggest headache because virus makers use DLL to replace silently functionality in a system.

They inject code into Applications that are running. Its got nothing to do with DLL's.

DLL are no longer necessary

If i made a nice library which only used Delphi's dpk (Delphi Package, Equivalent to C++'s Libs) then C++ people couldn't use it in there applications, just like Delphi people can't use Lib files. DLL's are also necessary for Plugins. The actual OS would still need DLL's for drivers, etc.

[Julio Jerez]

Stucuk, using visual studio you can make stand alone application that include everything they nee to run. No dll needed.

[Stucuk]

And? The guy was on about needing a Lib file to link to a DLL. Not being able to create an application with the Lib compiled into it.

[Julio Jerez]

I was just giving some information about why dlls.
DLL are falling out favor by new system like consoles, movile devices, embedded systems, microcontrollers, etc.
DLL are a product of Multitasking OS running on PC. and they were made for the reason to save memory.

I was not trying to be confrontational. I have nothing against DLLs, I love DLLs, but they are falling out of favor by hardware makers.