| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
MSN 8 Asks Users to Pay for Some Online Services | |
|
||
| Time: 16:00 EST/21:00 GMT | News Source: Gartner | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft's decision to move MSN to a partial for-pay model reasonably extends the trend in which content and application providers seek financial legitimacy by countering the popular mid-1990s assertion that information ("content" is the more common term in 2002) "wants to be free." The precipitous decline in competition among Internet information and interaction hubs makes the for-pay business model more defensible than ever — the critical issue here. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 476 through 500 of 1501 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
5:03:54 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #476 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 12:24:06 AM |
|
I believe I have the gist of it. The main thing I was trying to figure out is the "right" way of coding. When going from conception to code, how would you figure out what the core component is, and from there, how/when to separate features or encapsulate them for reuse?
Example: I want to build a game using C#/.NET. Besides any specifics, the game clearly needs file I/O capabilities, a graphics renderer, a sound renderer, AI, collision detection, (possibly) physics, and device I/O. Given that .NET has classes for I/O, and access to DirectX for sound/video rendering, you could just make the game dependent upon the Windows-specific tools and probably save some dev time, but wouldn't you still need a layer of abstraction from the APIs for code reuse purposes or portability? Take the graphics renderer, for example: In creating a layer of abstraction from the API so that you could, for instance, have a drop-in renderer (Switch between D3D/OpenGL), would you basically have to write your own graphics functions for the subset of rendering functions you need, then map those calls to a dll that uses the native API (more modular, I imagine), or would your code contain ..... I think I figured out the answer to this myself. :-) At the most basic level, however, file I/O for instance, would you ever abstract this from the API if portability was not a concern? Assuming your game/app needed to write info to a console, would there ever be a case where you wouldn't just use System.Console.Write() or cout<< (in the case of C++)? Portability reasons aside, is it wrong to be absolutely dependent upon an API or library? |
| #477 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 12:26:13 AM |
| I think my main question was above the example. Reading back over the post, I think I went off in two different directions between the question and the example. Sorry if it's a bit confusing. |
| #478 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 12:55:36 AM |
| Suck every last ounce of life out of the API's. They are written so you don't have to do the work yourself! |
| #479 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 1:07:25 AM |
|
Will do. :-)
Hey, you're catching up with blue. Almost 2000 posts) |
| #480 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 1:09:31 AM |
| I'll get there! Watch out, blue! |
| #481 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 1:23:32 AM |
| It's been almost two years since I last coded in CC++, so this might be a dumb question. If you were to avoid using cout (and I assume you'd avoid printf too) how else would you write to the console? |
| #482 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 1:37:16 AM |
|
cout is the only way I know. printf was left over from C.
You'd probably need a different library (which would still probably use cout). cout and cin are basically overloaded for all I/O operations. So if you wanted to output to a file, you would include fstream.h, make an object of type fstream (IIRC) and cout whatever data you have either to a hardcoded file (generally not a good idea), or to a variable that asks for that asks the user for the file and/or directory info. |
| #483 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 1:43:09 AM |
| I only have experience with DOS-style programming in C++, though. I haven't yet looked at things like STL, MFC, or anything other than the basic, standard libraries. |
| #484 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 1:55:55 AM |
| The point that I was getting out was that if you didn't use such basic functions like cout, you'd not be able to talk to the console. It was just reinforcing the need for API's and libraries. |
| #485 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 1:58:39 AM |
| STL is a wonderful thing. Vector is my friend! |
| #486 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 2:12:38 AM |
|
Oh, I got ya.
Although, in the case of multiplatform support (i.e., DX is native to Windows), there would be a need for abstraction, right? So that on Windows, the game could use DX and on the Mac, it could use whatever they have, without you having to rewrite significant portions of code. |
| #487 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 2:14:37 AM |
| You're dead on. I have a few thoughts on that, but they can wait till this episode of the Simpsons is over and till I've finsihed my dinner. |
| #488 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 2:34:54 AM |
| lol |
| #489 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 2:36:49 AM |
| 800 |
| #490 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 2:37:12 AM |
| posts :-) |
| #491 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 2:37:42 AM |
|
XEROX Research
http://news.com.com/1604-2-961378-2.asx This post was edited by n4cer on Saturday, October 12, 2002 at 02:38. |
| #492 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:11:01 AM |
|
The Simpsons are awesome. I just got the 2nd season DVDs. : - )
Yeah, you're totally right about using an abstraction layer to prevent dependence on a specific library. I'd say that an awful lot of libraries are safe to depend on. In terms of Windows only apps, you can depend on things like Windows Media Player (thank you for not taking that away from us Justtice Department!). You might, though, code a media wrapper, though, since you may have clients that detest WMP. For them you might want to provide a QT or Real option as well. As far as display engines, the DX vs OpenGL is a great example. (BTW, I think with OS the Mac display engine is Quartz or Quartz Extreme.) |
| #493 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:11:37 AM |
| Congrats on the post milestone, bro! |
| #494 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/12/2002 3:19:07 AM |
| I'd just say "Deal with it" (in a stern voice) if they didn't like WMP :-) j/k |
| #495 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:33:09 AM |
|
i had a roommate that worked for two sad companies. while i was studying for mcsd, he'd tell me about his perl problems. he had to write his stuff in perl, so it could run on multiple server OSes. i told him about db connection pooling, compiling data and middle tier components, and the like. he was stuck with uncompilable perl and couldn't take advantage of the great things that his main platform - windows - offered.
a few months later, he was hired by another company. they were java / xml fans. in the beginning the did oracle, but to save money, they did their data in mySql. I got to write nice VB6 code and compile it and sit it on a server. I got to write happy stored procs in SQL Server and have it server me XML. While he was writing html that would support 3.x browsers, i got to use .NET server controls and forgot all about javascript incompatibilities. oh, the reason i brought this up, is that along with doing java and mysql to be server agnostic, their media stuff was encoded in asf, qt, and real for the sake of their clients. they were the epitome of "we are everything to everybody". I told him his company was crazy. Interestingly enough, they never were able to sell the product and the company went bankrupt. He now works for a more tech happy company. Though he is still stuck with java on the server, he only has to support IE 5.5+ for browsers. They try to support NS 6.1, but don't make any promises. |
| #496 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:35:34 AM |
| btw, i totally agree with the "deal with it" line. i do my best to talk all of my clients into some really basic understandings - if windows is on 95% of desktops, don't worry about the other 5%. If IE used by more than 95% of surferes, don't worry about the less than 5% of other users. Often time, I the client agrees that NS support isn't important. If it happens, good, but if not, don't spend any more project budget to make it happen. |
| #497 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:37:59 AM |
| this xerox stuff is really interesting. my eyes are heavy though. think i'll be sleeping soon. |
| #498 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:40:03 AM |
| 599 |
| #499 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:40:19 AM |
| 600! |
| #500 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/12/2002 3:41:21 AM |
| page 25! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 476 through 500 of 1501 Prev | First | Last | Next |
The time now is
5:03:54 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
