Visual Studio seems to want to put class contructor code and event handling code in the .h file. I have only been involved in small 1 man projects and was wondering what the general industry standard was.
For Visual C++ Application projects what code would one put in the .h file? I am used to the mode classical C++ way of declaring your class in the .h file and coding in the .cpp file. Does this still apply to Visual Studio applications?
I have a strong C background which would explain my preference for this. The VSC++ compiler doesn't seem to mind.
In short: What is one supposed to put in which type of file?
TIA
Ends
There is no widely accepted industry standard. By putting (short) function definitions in the header, you give the compiler a better chance to inline the code. The benefit is that it can make the code run faster (keep those functions short, though). However, this comes at the cost of exposing more code to the clients who include that header, making you (or your colleagues) recompile more files when you change the implementation.
You also have to take into account the cost of going against your tools. Since VC++'s wizards insist on putting the functions in the headers, you have to move them everytime if you disagree.
It's really project-specific, I would say.
If you're using MFC and you're talking about the generated code, it's best to leave it alone.
If you're trying to do 'normal' C++ development, put as little as you can get away with in the header, as it means client code doesn't depend on too many implementation details. What you can get away with depends a little on use of templates, and how much indirection your performance budget can support.
For Visual C++ Application projects
what code would one put in the .h
file? I am used to the mode classical
C++ way of declaring your class in the
.h file and coding in the .cpp file.
Does this still apply to Visual Studio
applications?
Short: Yes
Long: Depends on the person or language. In c++ the header is for declaring and cpp for the coding. For C# you have one file (or if you use interfaces, 2)
This might seem minor, but just remember: headers are #included in several places. (And headers including headers complicates things further.) Any time you change a header, a lot of files are gonna be compiled again. Keeping as little of frequently changing code in the header reduces recompilation of dependant files.
Another thing: an uncluttered header file gives you a quick overview of what a class/form has to offer.
Related
Is it possible to compile libexif with Visual Studio 2010? I have been trying to do so and have been running into a whole slew of problems. I cannot find any information about whether anybody has successfully done this before. I know I can use MinGW to compile the library, but I am in a situation where I need it to be compiled with Visual Studio and then need to link to it from a Visual C++ app. Is this possible?
To answer your question: Yes it is possible... but it is a bit of a hack. Libexif uses functions that MSVC has chosen not to implement. See my working example VS2010 project below (if you don't like downloading files then skip to my explanation of what needed changing to get it to work below):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l6wowl8pouux01a/libexif-0.6.21_CompiledInVS2010%2BExample.7z?dl=0
To elaborate, the issues that needed a "hack" (as hinted in the LibExif readme-win32.txt documentation) are:
Libexif uses inline in several places which is not defined in VS for C, only C++ (see this)
Libexif uses snprintf extensively in the code which is not defined in VS (see here)
You need to create the config.h yourself without a ./configure command to help you. You could read through the script but most of it doesn't make sense for Windows VS2010.
You will need to define GETTEXT_PACKAGE because it's probably setup in the configure file. I just choose UTF-8, whether that is correct or not I'm not sure.
There was a random unsigned static * that needed to be moved from a .c file to the .h file as C in VS doesn't allow you to create new variables inside functions in the particular way they were trying to do.
Read the "readme-win32.txt" file. Advice is:
hack yourself a build system somehow. This seems to be the Windows way of doing things.
Don't get your hopes up. The *nix way of doing things is the configuration script that needs to be run first. It auto-generates source files to marry the library to the specific flavor of *nix. The configuration script is almost half a megabyte. Three times as much code as in the actual .c files :) You cannot reasonably get that working without MinGW so you can execute the script. Once you got that done, you've got a better shot at it with a VS solution. As long as it doesn't use too much C99 specific syntax.
I'm working on a (rather horrible) project that involves importing a C++ class hierarchy through a dll interface. One of the more horrible details requires me know the 'decorated' names for the various class elements that are exposed - mostly member functions and static data.
There are many ways to achieve this - the assembly listing or map file, dumpbin, a dependency walker, the _FUNCDNAME_ macro, etc. Unfortunately, they all require me to actually compile the code or have the compiled dll - and all I have available is the header files. (That may leave you scratching your head for a minute - just take my word that it truly is a horrible project.)
Now, I can easily concoct something compilable from just the headers and use one of the above approaches. But if I can avoid it, that would be much better. So my question is: is there a way to browse decorated symbol names from within Visual Studio, a la Object Browser? I know that the decoration is technically done at compile time, but Intellisense does so many other things while you type that I'm hoping it might do this too.
If all else fail take that .h, rename it to .cpp, replace all semicolons (;) with
{
#pragma message(__FUNCDNAME__)
}
edit it a little, and compile it. You'll get your list.
I hope this is a valid question: how does intellisense work in VS2008? I'm after what is known about the algorithm it uses to find the suggestions, when exactly it pops up (the "." is just one obvious trigger), how its behavior can be modified if at all possible, etc.
To put this question into context: The main issue I'm trying to resolve is how to activate and deactivate intellisense in portions of the editor screen and how to modify where it searches to populate the suggestion box.
All information is welcome.
Take a look at this DIY Intellisense article on CodeProject.
It's more fun to reverse-engineer it, though. Let's consider the problem:
you need to identify the words of interest
you need to find the options possible
you need to present them
Now, the first step means you have to parse the code. You've got the C/C** keywords, you pre-parse the various function and class declarations, and load them into some kind of data structure. Then you parse the code and store the class, variable, etc names and put them in the same data structure.
The second step means you want a data structure which efficiently can search for a partial word and get all the words that have that prefix. You can do that with regular expressions, but that's not very efficient. An efficient data structure for that kind of search is a trie, which is discussed here on SO .
Once you have the list of possibilities, you just present it. You probably want to keep a reference to the root of the tree of possibilities so you can search them out in real time as someone types more letters.
Eclipse also has this feature and it is an open source project. Why not check out how Eclipse does it by actually looking at the code?
This question is too broad. Since there are a number of different languages the VS IDE supports out of the box AND there are N number of DSL and IDE enhancements that support alternative intellisense this implies a number of answers. If you are speaking about C# specifically then See the Tools | Options | Text Editor | C# | Intellisense area to see the available options of completion options. As far as the algorithm[s] used, you would be looking for the metadata of assemblies, copious caching of type members, MRU list for last member chosen for specific type, etc. If you have a more specific question, I'd suggest you clarify.
See the example of a DSL (ironpython) and its implementation here.
I haven't seen any text editor in VS that limits where IntelliSense shows up. It's all language specific. If your cursor is located at a point where IntelliSense might contribute to a valid token, that's when it will be used.
I believe there is some interaction with the project system being used, but that's as far as I know. I also believe there is a sample project system in the Visual Studio SDK, and that might give you an idea.
For such cases I sometimes use my own version of InteliSense that I developed for AutoHotKey when I want specific behavior. The point of this script is that it can be used with any editor, or basically any control accepting text. It works by recording text input and interpreting it upon syntax file.
You can perhaps use it as a base for the thing you want to achieve. I used ISense succesifully with several languages that don't have such thing, like Csound or even batch scripts. It will be possible to extend it to support C# using input monitoring in combination with Reflection.
Anyway, with AHK you can even control VS intelissense by "taking" the list of items it presents and filter it, or similar things. You may have some small problems with process boundaries but nothing that cant be fixed.
The intellisense ius generally, AFAIK, implemented using different methods. I read that Delphi is so fast that it implements isense by recompiling the project on each token and thats the reason C++ Builder didn't have isense as its compiling very slow.
As to your how to change where it looks question, short answer is, you can't. Intellisense for the most part is provided by reflection of assemblies included in your project ( and some other tricks with C++ ). What you are getting is a result of VS processing through all the assemblies you have included and all assemblies from the GAC.
That said, if you want to provide explicit intellisense results from a project you are working on, look into IVsContextualIntellisenseFilterProvider
Finally, for some insight into the behind the scenes process, check this blog post
Whats the easiest way to find out what programming language an application was written in?
I would like to know if its vb or c++ or delphi or .net etc from the program exe file.
Try PEiD
of course if they used a packer, some unpacking will need to be done first :)
Start it up and check what run-time DLLs it uses with Process Explorer.
If that doesn't make it immediately obvious, search the web for references to those DLLs.
Most disassemblers (including Olly I think) can easily show you the text contained in an EXE or DLL, and that can also sometimes give a clue. Delphi types are often prefixed with T as in TMyClass.
If it's a small executable with no DLL references and no text you might be SOL. At that point you'd need to look for idioms of particular compilers, and it would be mostly guesswork.
There is an art to detecting what language a program was written in. It is possible but there are no hard and fast rules. It takes a lot of experience (and it also leads to the question "Why would you want to..." but here are a few ideas on how to go about it.
What you're looking for is a "signature". The signature could be a certain string that is included by the compiler, a reference to an API that is quite common in the programming tool being used, or even a style of programing that is common to the tools being used, visible in the strings contained in the application.
In addition, there are styles to how an application is deployed: various configuration files found in the deployment directory, dlls and assemblies and even images, directories or icons.
Java applications wrapped in a self-launching executable will contain references to java libs, and will likely have certain libraries or files included in the same directory that indicate that it's java.
As indicated in other answers a managed assembly will show certain signs as well: you can open it in Reflector etc. While it is correct that c# and VB are "interchangable" once compiled, it is not true that they are identical. If you use Reflector to disassemble VB code you will quite often see that the assembly references the Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll assembly. You'll be able to tell the difference between Mono applications because they will most likely contain references to the mono assemblies.
Many compilers assemble and link code in certain ways, and leave footprints behind. For example, examining a window executable using "strings: tab in Process Explorer, you'll see a lot of strings. Using these you may be able to determine programming styles, methods called, error or trace methods withint the exe.
An example is that compilers use different mechanisms for localization: Microsoft stores localized strings in XML files or resource files. Other compilers will use a different tactic.
Another example is c++ name mangling. The CodeWarrior compiler uses a different algorithm to mangle the names of the member variables and functions of a call than Visual Studio.
I suppose you could write a book on the subject of accurately determining the lineage of any executable. This subject would probably be called "programming archeology".
You could try using Depends to see what runtime dependancies it has, which might give some clues.
The easiest way is to ask the developer of the program. It does not require any knowledge and utility programs.
Determine Delphi Application
Use eda_preview270.exe (from here) or some other spy tool and check the window class names. If they read like TButton or TfrmBlubb, it's a VCL app. If there is an "Afx" in them, it's probably MFC.
Compiled languages (by this I mean no scripting languages, or Java, .NET, etc.) are compiled into CPU assembly instructions, which is essentially a one-way conversion. It is not usually possible to determine which language a program was written in. However, using a dependency walker, you could potentially determine which runtime library the program was loading (if any) and therefore determine which language it used (e.g. MS Visual C++ 9 uses msvcr90.dll).
you can check is that a .net assembly or not by trying to open with ildasm.exe tool
PE Detective works best for me.
In general, you can't.
If you can load it into Reflector, you know it is a managed assembly.
That's a good question. There isn't any general way to tell, but I bet most compilers and libraries leave a mark in the resulting EXE file. If you wanted to spend a lot of time on it, you could gather a bunch of EXEs written in known languages and scan for common strings. I would image you'd find some.
Dependancy Walker, which someone else mentioned would be a good way to look for telltale dependencies, like versions of MSVCRT, etc
i'd try running the .exe thru a 'strings' program to get assorted hints.
If I remember correctly PE Explorer Disassembler gives some information about compiler that creates given not .net and java binary, for .net use Reflector or ILDAsm tool
The easiest way that I found (at least in computer games) was to look in the "redist" folder nested within the game's main folder. It might be obvious to some of you that are more experienced in programming yourself, but the specific purpose of the MSI in this folder is to allow the setup.exe file to automatically install the prerequisites for the game itself.
For example:
In Empire Total War, there is an MSI called "vcredist_x86-sp1.exe". This indicates that the game/program was written in Microsoft's "Visual C 2005" in the .NET Framework (usually).
In fact, if you open the MSI/EXE, the installer should immediately indicate the language it's written in and which version.
The reason I'm familiar is because I code in C# and VB in the .NET Framework and we auto-install the prerequisites for our business app.
Hope this helps!
After some searching I've found that Microsoft Visual Studio does not provide the "complex.h" header file, but I have some C code that unfortunately uses it. I've tried using <complex> and compiling as C++ code; this requires changing
complex
to
_complex
I don't even know what I would need to change
long complex
to. Any ideas how I can get around this?
Have you tried this link?
If you can't use third-party libraries, then I think you're going to be compelled to re-implement complex functionality yourself. The good news is that most complex math is actually really simple to write, unless you need some fairly advanced features.