For software applications like games, does this mean software companies have a lot of extra coding to maintain 3 branches of certain libraries?
I know this is hard to say, but for game development in general, are there specific areas in the software where they will have to write 3 times in order to work in all 3 flavors of windows?
I'm guessing the core software will be untouched, but maybe some drivers will need to be version specific?
It depends how close to the OS you are. If you're just using the .NET framework or DirectX, probably not much changes between operating systems. If you're writing drivers or relying on the Win32 API then there definitely could be subtle or not so subtle changes.
If your code is written correctly in the first place, there should not be a huge investment into supporting an OS upgrade. Using something like the .NET framework helps guarantee this even more.
Also, why would games have 'drivers'?
Not really. If you use DirectX 9, you are fine on all 3 Windows Versions. The extra maintenance evolves around stuff like the Installer/Uninstaller, about the Games-Tab that was new in Vista (if you want to use it) etc., but as said, DirectX 9 is a stable API on all 3.
You will get into some fun with DirectX 10 (not on WinXP) and with OpenGL (Support in Vista is weird).
Even if you use "portable" interfaces like DirectX or .Net or whatever that are supposed to provide the same functionality, a responsible software developer will have to do QA and testing on each supported platform.
(Note that I don't claim to be a responsible software developer. :-))
Many game develoeprs, including the studio I work for, use engines that manage cross platform issues. We are using Unreal for our game and it ports to the PS3, Xbox, and PC with no issues other than performance differences between them. The engine typically handles the differences in platforms.
As a .Net developer, most of the issues I saw when running applications built with XP as the original target were things we were doing incorrectly that just happened to work in XP (most were using the system colors that looked ok on XP but were wrong for Vista -- e.g., the default Vista theme caused a black font on black background).
It was coding by coincidence at its finest (we were naive enough to not know it was wrong). However, once we started testing on both Vista and XP, we started to produce a better Windows product.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
If you open the page "Graphics and Gaming (Windows)" on microsoft.com
the last category is described as
Legacy Graphics: Technologies that are obsolete and should not be used in new
applications.
This category includes (among others) the following APIs:
GDI
GDI+
OpenGL
What's your opinion? If i want to roll out a new software today it must support Windows XP (still about 50% of all installed systems). Direct2D requires Windows 7/Vista. What else should be used?
I suspect that Microsoft's definition of "legacy" has little to do with what any sensible developer should do, and is instead based on some Grand Rewrite of the Windows API.
Starting at around Windows Vista, Microsoft has been redesigning many of their API's. We now have MMDevAPI as the One True Sound API, WIC is the One True Image File API, etc. From what I've seen/heard, these new API's are much better than the old ones, and the "legacy" systems all work based on the new ones. In Windows Vista and later, DirectSound is entirely based on MMDevAPI, and components that need to read image files do it via WIC.
Windows 8 will have an ARM version, which it appears will support only a subset of the current Windows API. We won't know for sure until Windows on ARM is released, but, based on the libraries included for the ARM platform in Visual Studio 11 (ref: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2012-March/094559.html), it's looking like GDI+ and OpenGL will not be available. GDI is available for linking, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's intact.
This new API's from Vista and later roughly correspond to the libraries in the VS11 ARM target. I'm guessing that anything on that list is there because it's either the latest and greatest way to do what it does, or it's too technically important to discard (for now). Thus, "legacy" is anything that's not the latest and greatest way to do at least one thing.
I'm not sure what is the One True Graphics API. Already we have Direct2D, Direct3D, DirectComposition (which, by the way, is not available until Windows 8), DirectWrite, and DXGI. DXGI seems the closest, but I don't have a deep enough understanding of the graphics API's to say. I suspect gdi32 is technically very difficult to get rid of. How are non-legacy applications meant to find out when part of a window has been revealed and therefore must be painted, without using WM_PAINT, which involves an HDC, and how could a library do that on an application's behalf without replacing its window procedure? How are we meant to make semi-transparent windows without using UpdateLayeredWindow, which takes an HDC? How much does user32 depend on gdi32, and can they really be separated?
From a technical standpoint, Windows can easily get rid of GDI+ and OpenGL, but I'm not convinced that getting rid of OpenGL will work out, even on a new platform that doesn't promise any backward compatibility. It seems too valuable to developers. GDI+ isn't so important, but it's very easy for a third party to provide a replacement.
I would say use any of the API's you listed, and the worst that's likely to happen is that you have to rewrite your UI if you want to port your app to metro or Windows on ARM. GDI is a fine choice if your needs are simple and you'll be coding directly for the Windows API. There aren't many situations where I'd recommend GDI+ over OpenGL as a drawing API. GDI+ is slow, limited, and only available on Windows. The GDI+ API is simpler because it's 2D, so maybe it's worthwhile if you need to do something very simple but with anti-aliasing.
OpenGL isn't deprecated, Microsoft's implementation of it is. Microsoft's implementation is stuck at version 1.1, which is old. The current version of the standard is past version 4. If you want to use OpenGL, it is fully supported by NVidia, ATI, and Intel graphics cards on the Windows desktop, but not in Metro Windows Modern UI apps, is an industry standard, and also works on Mac and Linux. If you need a software fallback implementation, Mesa has got you covered, and it even works on DOS. (Since Mesa can render into memory buffers, there's no reason it won't work in Modern UI apps, but you probably don't want to do this because it can be slow.) One thing of note is that WGL, the API for accessing OpenGL functionality on the Windows desktop, depends on GDI (which is deprecated) so you probably want to use something like FreeGLUT or SDL instead if you want to future-proof your application, which also nets you platform independence.
OpenGL ES is a variant of OpenGL which works on Android and Apple iOS. It is also accessible in JavaScript via WebGL, which Internet Explorer 11 will support (and pretty much every other browser already does.) ANGLE provides a hardware-accelerated implementation of GLES for Windows which piggybacks off of DirectX (version 9 or 11) and thus should work in Modern UI apps as well. Once again, Mesa's got the software implementation covered.
TL;DR: OpenGL is not only not deprecated, it is cross-platform, standard, and has tremendous momentum in the industry. GDI and GDI+, well, not so much.
If you want to support Windows XP, then you're supporting a "legacy" operating system, and as such, using a "legacy" graphics framework is the logical choice.
Even if that weren't true, let's just say that I disagree with the advice given by the linked MSDN article. The "legacy" status here has more to do with which technology the Windows team thinks is cool this week. The status designation of "obsolete" just means that the group responsible is no longer accepting or fulfilling bug reports (except for critical security issues). Not too big of a deal—these technologies have been around long enough that they're fairly feature-complete and stable.
GDI isn't going anywhere, so if you need something rock-solid that is guaranteed to be supported anywhere and everywhere, that's what I would go with.
If you need a bit more 2D capabilities than GDI offers (e.g., alpha channel transparency), then you could consider using GDI+. It's nearly an order of magnitude slower than GDI, but that's not too big of an issue on modern machines with more power than you could ever want. This, too, is going to be supported for a very long time to come.
That said, if I were writing a new app today, I probably wouldn't bother with OpenGL. There's very little that it offers in benefits over Direct2D and DirectWrite, which are both what Microsoft is pushing as the replacements for GDI/GDI+. There might be some benefit to using OpenGL if you absolutely must target Windows XP because as far as I can tell, Direct2D/DirectWrite are only supported on Vista and later, but that's because (as I mentioned originally), Windows XP falls squarely into the "legacy" or "obsolete" camp itself. Alternatively, if you already know OpenGL well and don't have time or the desire to learn Direct2D/DirectWrite, then it might make sense to continue using it in a new application.
Don't let the verbiage of the MSDN article scare you. Choose whatever technology makes the most sense for your specific use case given all of the available information. By the time any of these technologies go away completely, you'll have to re-write the app completely for a dozen other reasons.
Edit: Hmm, it looks like DirectWrite has also been declared (by some people at least) "obsolete" as well, having been replaced by Direct2D. That's funny, it hasn't even been around long enough for me to bother learning it. I guess that only goes to support my earlier argument that "obsolete" simply designates that a particular technology is not what is currently considered to be in vogue by the Microsoft devs.
I'm personally waiting until all the bugs get worked out of this stuff (and we decide on a semi-permanent standard) before I make the switch for any of my applications. Everything I've seen written in DirectDraw or Direct2D has had serious rendering bugs and is a performance nightmare, even on reasonably competent machines. Sure, they only show up sometimes, under the right conditions, but that's too much for me. And I swear, the blurry text shows up all the time. Not being able to read what's on screen is a deal-killer for me and my users. GDI doesn't have this problem, and it's not going anywhere.
Are GDI, GDI+ and OpenGL really obsolete/deprecated?
This is not true for OpenGL. OpenGL 4 allows you to use geometry shaders on winxp. Which isn't possible with DirectX (DirectX 10 and up isn't supported on WInXP). It is also one of the only cross-platform 3D APIs out there.
From a business point of view MS is interested in promoting DirectX since it is their technology that lock Developer into windows platform (they're also interested in making DirectX more attractive for developer, but that's another story). So it makes sense that they aren't keen on promoting OpenGL.
What else should be used?
I'd advise to stop using platform-specific tecnologies when possible. Grab cross-platform framework and use it for your application. There's Qt, GTK, wxWidgets and other toolkits for GUI apps, and SDL(and alternatives) for games. This way when platform developer decide to make ridiculous decision (like not supporting DX10 on WinXP) you dislike, you'll be able to move elsewhere with minimum development cost. Qt is also ridiculously powerful and at the moment I have no reason to use something else for GUI development. Still, situation can change in the future.
In short, while developing for certain platform you should keep in mind that platform developer might have their goals that are not compatible with your wishes. Discovering that your source has become locked into single platform isn't very pleasant experience. Your own goals should be the first priority, and if os developer tries to make you use certain technology you don't like, then you shouldn't support that technology.
Because OpenGL is a standard, it should be considered equally deprecated as C or C++ so it is a matter of time before the entire Windows API -- which today has become a compile once run on every x86 machine API thanks to Wine -- is considered deprecated in favour of .NET and C#.
I use GDI for simple graphics and OpenGL, when I need accelerated 3d.
Another aspect is that Microsoft's build-in implementation of OpenGL is definitely to be considered as deprecated since it is just version 1.1 or something, but that has been for a long time.
Yeah, about OpenGL, it actually outperforms DirectX in many ways both resource and display wise. It will never be promoted by Microsoft because it can't own OpenGL, not to mention most people don't do their research and Microsoft can claim it is old. Truth is opengl is opensource standard and evolves at a much faster rate than closed does because it is more than 1 room of developers paid to work on it. Also Microsoft has contracts with many companies to release using only Microsoft's software, this causes more business for Microsoft and less to use the more advanced OpenGL standard. It is a interesting lock up if you will, Microsoft creates these contracts so that many programs are written in DirectX to keep business for Microsoft, and no company will refuse it because Microsoft has about 80%+ home user market.
I want to make a 2D desktop GUI application with DirectX but I don't know which version to use. I initially tried Direct2D but it never really gained popularity, thus there isn't a lot of community support or documentation for it compared to the rest of DirectX, so it's not an option.
So I have three options:
DirectX 9.0c
DirectX 10
DirectX 11 (not 11.1, I'm not getting Windows 8)
A knowledgeable friend of mine strongly encouraged DirectX 9.0c saying that's all I need, but I am wary of using an 8-year old platform. Microsoft is pretty much the zenith of legacy support but I think that they must have a limit. I have no idea of the difference between DX10 and DX11.
Keep in mind that I'm very much a novice programmer so this is mostly a learning project.
Any advice is appreciated!
Edit: I'd also appreciate advice on any significant differences in functionality or programming paradigms between the versions.
What version of DirectX should I use to make a 2D desktop GUI application?
DirectX 9, because you'll get more users.
A knowledgeable friend of mine strongly encouraged DirectX 9.0c saying that's all I need, but I am wary of using an 8-year old platform.
Many DirectX 7 and DirectX 5 games still work just fine, not to mention titles that use DirectDraw. So there's no problem with 8-year old platform. Using newer (than 9) version might not even benefit you, so blindly going for higher version number isn't a good idea.
Depending on your circumstances you could also consider using OpenGL but that choice makes sense only if your app has to be cross-platform. If you know that application will be windows-only, then choosing DirectX 9 makes sense.
Microsoft's primary commitment is to its Windows customers. Who still run 15 years old games that use whatever DirectX version was in use back then. IDirectDraw is alive and well. Clearly you'll benefit from that as a developer secondarily. And sure, DX 9 is most widely supported by hardware so that's an excellent choice. Consider something higher if your game performs poorly on old hardware, the DX version is an automatic selector.
Are you writing this for work, or for fun?
If it's for work, then you have to go by the minimum system requirements that someone in business or marketing has defined. If your minimum OS can be Win7 or Vista SP2 w/ Platform Update, then Direct2D is a viable option. Otherwise, DX9 is the way you have to go.
If it's for fun on your own personal time, then do whatever you think will be the most fun :) Direct2D will certainly be MUCH easier to work with if you just want to do 2D graphics. I wouldn't worry much about the "it hasn't gained popularity/community support" angle, especially because it's being used by all the major desktop apps nowadays (Firefox, Internet Explorer, and even the next version of Paint.NET). Also, Win8 will update Direct2D with a whole bunch of interesting new features (and this update will also be available for Win7 from what I understand).
Direct2D can be clumsy to work with at first, but that's mainly due to all the COM stuff. Once you get used to it and build up your own little utilities warchest, it's really not any more complicated than GDI+. In fact, I've been able to port a bunch of old GDI+ code to using Direct2D/DirectWrite and often it's just a line-by-line substitution, e.g. SolidBrush -> SolidColorBrush (this is in the Paint.NET 4.0 code base, btw).
I used the Direct 2D to render graphs of functions and it's pretty easy to use - I'd say, as simple as GDI+. I'd guess, that level of complexity of DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 (in terms of 2D graphics) is quite similar, so don't worry about that.
DirectX 9.0 runs on (let's say) all modern computers, and 11 restricts you to Windows Vista (with platform pack) and Windows 7. Take into consideration, though, that Windows XP will eventually vanish and DirectX will evolve, so I'm not sure, is it worth investing your time into technology, which won't be developed anymore. I would suggest DirectX 11's Direct2D then.
I have an iPhone, an Ipad, don't have yet windows phone 7, but will get it right now if rebol can run on windows phone 7 so does/will rebol support it :)
Note: rebol could run on windows mobile so my question : will it continue to run on next version ?
Well if they don't release NDK, I will buy a tablet with classic Windows 7, that for sure can run rebol and a bunch of softwares I already have :)
When the ARM core library will be compiled, it may be possible for someone to port the host-kit to many new hand-held devices including Windows Phone 7, Android and even the iPhone (since they relaxed their TOS).
The ARM library is already high on the wish list of many people who are willing and able to work on the host-kit part of REBOL 3.
With 5 host-kit platforms already maintained by different developers (some indie) already at different levels of completion, the answer is not IF but rather WHEN will R3 run on these new exciting devices.
IMHO R3 still needs a little more stability work for mass porting, but in the last 2 months, I think R3 has matured to levels that are starting to catch up to R2 in many areas.
One good thing is that the extension API is proving to be highly effective and fast. Its design is also stabilizing which is a good sign of the current maturity of the host-kit.
A caveat
One must understand that many mobile platforms have strict development licenses and some even have hard to integrate APIs into which executables must try and link in.
Many don't even want binaries to work directly and the road to integration isn't meant to be easy on purpose. AFAIK winphone7 is probably the easiest one of the bunch, so don't despair.
Not until Microsoft or a third party releases a "native development kit" (NDK). The same problem hampers others, such as Firefox, who cannot readily port their apps to Silverlight, XNA or the .NET CF (which are the only Microsoft-supported development platforms at the moment).
Someone I used to work for emailed me out of the blue and said they want me to update a VB3 (!!!) program I wrote for them because customers are reporting having problems running it under Windows 7. They have lost the source code (natch). Is there a decompiler for VB3?
For decompiling VB "DoDi VB3 decompiler" is the best tool available. The results are pretty good.
However the original is anno 1997. VB3 is 16 bit code only + still some bugs + no source code. These makes that tool hard to get running on windows beyond Windows XP and limits it's use.
DoDi's VBDIS3 it self is also written in VB3 - so about 10 years later just for fun I cracked it to make the decompiler to decompile it self.
... and ported it to VB6!
So now you've the source code !!! :D
... and it's 32 Bit code + some bugfixes and improvements to the original:
DoDi's Visual Basic 3 Decompiler [Reloaded]:
http://vbdis4.angelfire.com
Screenshoot:
in case that website get lost Google for
'VBDIS3.67e_Reloaded_Rev3_DoDi_s_VB3Decompiler.7z'
or try the internet archive
http://web.archive.org/web/20090301170633/http://vbdis4.angelfire.com
I remember looking for Visual Basic decompilers/disassemblers a long time ago to no avail. There may be things out there now though. The most I could come up with was PE Explorer: http://www.heaventools.com/overview.htm
Have you suggested running your application under Windows Compatibility mode: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/316-compatibility-mode.html
Edit: Further Googling: http://www.w7forums.com/visual-basic-3-0-compatible-64-bit-version-t5146.html
I maintain legacy 16-bit VB3 software
that is compatible with Windows 7 and
have done a lot of research in this
area.
16-bit applications will not natively
run in Windows 7 64-bit full stop.
This is because when a 64-bit capable
CPU is started in 64-bit mode, it
cannot change into 'real mode' (the
mode used by 16-bit applications)
without a hard reset. If a processor
is in 32-bit mode, it can swap between
real mode and protected mode at will.
The only workaround here is a virtual
machine- Windows 7 comes with a free
version of Windows XP which is usable
inside a custom version of Microsoft
Virtual PC. Google for "Windows 7
Virtual XP Mode". Once your copy of
Windows 7 has been validated as
authentic, it will allow you to
download Virtual PC and the XP Image.
It's definitely not a pretty solution,
but the only option for my customers
who have gone ahead and bought a
64-bit OS without checking to see if
their installed software is 64-bit
compatible.
Unlike the later versions which used native code and are generally not reliably decompilable, VB3 (and, I think, VB4) could be usually decompiled to almost original code. The keywords you need to search for are "DoDi VB3 decompiler" or "vb3dis". Here's a page that seems to have a copy.
Really? VB3, if it runs fine in XP, should be okay in the Windows compatibility box.
What I would do is to say that you couldn't find anything suitable (which is almost certainly true) but that you may be able to fix their problem for a moderate fee. Then, hopefully it's just a matter of setting a flag on the application (you may want to check this first to ensure it won't be too much work).
Money for Jam.
The other option is that you can offer to rewrite it for them in a more modern setting, using your vast knowledge of the application.
However, I'm surprised you don't have a copy lying around. I keep just about every piece of software I've ever written just in case (with permission for work-for-hire stuff of course), even down to the Fortran assignments I did at Uni back in the early 80s.
That's a good habit to get into, although I'm starting to wonder whether I should perhaps free up some space by ditching the Fortran :-)
There are a number of things you can do to help them without the source code. You could apply an external manifest if the application will only work when it is elevated. You could advise them to install the application somewhere other than Program Files (generally an awful idea, but might work in this case.) You could apply a compatibility setting or teach them how to install it into "XP mode" so it runs in an XP virtual machine.
Failing all of those, you could offer to rewrite it in VB.NET so they would get a more modern ui, Windows 7 features (not just capabilities) and would actually own the source code for their app. That might have value for them.
And yes, you should have kept the code. I have CDs burned from my old projects going back to the dawn of time (at some point I copied things from 3.5" backups to CDs while I still had some machines that could do both) and I have made more than one previous client happy by sending them the CD. It is a really cheap marketing investment, really.
It sounds like this is an application that is sold to customers, and is having trouble or doesn't work under Windows 7.
Consider advising the customer that the application should be:
modernized, thereby easing the ability to add features/maintained
otherwise run in XP Compatibility mode for their Windows 7 customers. Surely that number will only grow, and would become a support issue. Goto previous bullet.
Seriously though; your customer should realize that their software needs to be modernized. Hopefully you can persuade them of that long term goal; perhaps they already know that.
Microsoft recently released tools and documentation for its new Phone 7 platform, which to the dismay of those who have a big C++ codebase (like me) doesn't support native development anymore. Although I've found speculation about this decision being reversed, I doubt it. So I was thinking how viable would be to make this codebase available to Phone 7 by adapting it to compile under C++/CLI. Of course the user interface parts couldn't be ported, but I'm not sure about the rest. Anyone had a similar experience? I'm not talking about code that does heavy low-level stuff - but there's a quite frequent use of templates and smart pointers.
c++/cli can theoretically be used with WPF/Silverlight using the trick of replacing the C# generated from the XAML with a macro definition that can be used inside the main class in a code behind file. I worked out this technique but haven't had the motivation to take it beyond theory - I'm quite happy mixing languages.
As far as using c++/cli in a pure safe mode for your logic code, this may still not be possible but I'd love to hear how someone goes trying it now. Whilst researching it for Silverlight back in 2008 I found this daunting silverlight forum comment:
I just gave Silverlight&C++ it a try by compiling the MSIL from my C++ project into a Silverlight-compatible DLL. The good news: it works, and you can call this code from a Silverlight project. The bad news: The C++ compiler apparently uses MSIL instructions that Silverlight disallows.
So, if you try this, even with the simplest of programs, you'll almost immediately get the exception "Operation could destabilize the runtime." To me, this makes it seem less likely that we'll see Silverlight for C++ soon, as the compiler will need to behave quite a bit differently.
You can generate verifiable managed code in C++/CLI using the /clr:safe option. The problem is that most of your normal c++ code will not compile with that option.
C# is currently the only supported language for WinPhone7.
I fully expect that MS will add support for VB and C++/CLI in the future too, but don't expect to open up the native-code kimono anytime soon.
Native code just has too many issues to overcome, specifically around security, reliability, etc. Managed code is FAR easier to statically verify and FAR easier to control while running.
If you're upset about porting C++ code to C#, just be glad MS didn't force you to have to move to Objective-C ;)
From our own experience, the proces of porting well-written C++ to C# actually takes a lot less effort than one might at first expect. Sure, there's a learning curve, but you have that with any port. We actually got so much benefit from porting our core app and data engines to C# that we re-tooled our entire team to code in C# and port our C# back to C++ where necessary rather than the other way around! So far, we've only ported two modules back to C++ and call our C# code from our native code via interop instead.
Again, remember, WinPhone is a brand new platform using best of breed, highly-productive, next-generation development tools and platforms. It is not your father's WinMo.
If support for C++ is something you find to be crucially important, then make sure MS know - (respectfully and professionally) state your position in the MSDN forums and at developer events near you.
Update1: 2012-12-17:
While native C++ still isn't officially supported for Windows Phone 7, Windows Phone 8 now supports native C++ code so you can more easily port your existing C++ codebase(s) to Windows Phone 8 (as well as Windows 8 and Windows desktop apps).
While there isn't 100% compatibility between the Windows8/Phone8 platforms and API's right now, I expect the two platforms to become increasingly integrated over the next couple of releases.
This is especially true now that one of the key barriers to closer cooperation between Windows and other groups at Microsoft recently left the company ;)
Update2: 4/15/2014:
As per the recent announcements at //BUILD/ 2014, you can now start building "universal" apps in C++ & XAML, C#/VB & XAML or JavaScript & HTML that will run on Windows 8.1, Windows Phone 8.1 and Xbox One! For more details on building Windows Phone 8.1 Universal Apps, read this article.
The whole development idea is built on Silverlight. I think you can add your managed dll written in C++ without any problem to this Silverlight project, but it could not use native code.
I am planning to install the tools on my machine tonight and will try this out.
It is fine if MS decides to leave the path and create something new, that is MS' decision. So let's face the facts. Silverlight is no success yet. MS lost significant share due to Apple, Android and RIM. Application developers simply have to evaluate the business case for their own applications and decide if they trust in a share gain of Windows 7 phone or not. For the company that I run, we decided not to support any more MS Windows phone 7, not because of this or the other technical reason, but just because that we don't believe in the return of our investment for the port.
We start supporting Apple, Symbian, Andoid and MeeGo in the future if we see a market success of this new platform. All support C/C++ and enable us to reuse our proven application cores. So why worry at all. Personal technology preferences should not be gating. If personal preferences worry, then I would kick MS out for their to me ugly looking UI.
Thomas
It is on the horizon finally!
So a survey sent to windows phone developers about their future
development preferences and XNA isn't mentioned once in the Survey (A
survey sent to windows phone developers - did I mention that)
They do however ask:
How would you prefer to use C++ in your mobile apps/games?
Develop apps/games that are C++ from top to bottom (UI, business logic, and platform
APIs)
Use C++ for business logic and then write platform abstraction layer
Use C++ for business logic use 3rd party runtime engines
I don’t want to use C++