Subj : Re: Windows Procedural Programming
To   : comp.programming
From : alfps
Date : Mon Jul 25 2005 01:40 am

* Joe Butler:
> [top-posting, corrected]

Please don't top-post.


* Joe Butler:
> 
> * Snooze:
> > I want to begin developing Windows applications, but I don't have any
> > experience with OOP or Windows programming; only procedural programming.
> > Is it possible to develop Windows applications using only a procedural
> > programming language such as C or Pascal rather than an OOP language?
>
> Yes.  You can create (complex) windows programs (including DirectX
> applications) using just C.

Right, although not advisable.


> I think Phlip is exagerating the complexity of a Windows SDK program (pure
> C).

No, not really.  However, I think he's exaggerating the benefits from using
an OO language.  Those benefits are there 100% if you write a program that
is not Windows-specific, but in that case you're not writing a Windows
application; the Windows-specific stuff requires dealing with things that
object oriented abstraction doesn't make simple, although it helps much.

 
> A pure Windows SDK program has the following structure.
> 
> WinMain() - instead of main()

Sorry, that's incorrect.

First because it's a languagecentric view (C or C++), second because
'WinMain' is Microsoft-specific language extension, third because even with
Microsoft tools 'WinMain' has a special meaning (setting tool default
options) that's not "Windows SDK program" but "GUI subsystem program",
fourth because there are several such special functions, e.g. 'wWinMain',
and fifth but absolutely not least because _there is no need_ to use
'WinMain' or the like: you can & should just use standard C/C++ 'main'.


[snip]
> For SDK programming you could start with Programming Windows by Charles
> Petzold.

Good advice.

 
> One of the things that can be difficult to get right is handling printing
> support (there is no built in Print Preview functionality).  Also, loading
> things like bitmaps you have to supply the code yourself - althought I think
> with a new thing called GDI+ that can load bitmaps and jpegs with a single
> function call

Sorry, that's incorrect.  You could always use e.g. OleLoadPicturePath.
However, in one practical sense it's correct unless all you want to do is
display a photograph, for the units used for width and height are not pixel
based and are display-dependent, so that accuracy is thrown out the Windows.

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

.