www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D got it right!

reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile 
my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:

warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and for 
those that don't have a version taking a size_t, a new method ending in _s 
(fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t for the size of the string.

This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.

But what a great decision to get rid of zero-terminated strings in D, and 
make it an array which knows it's size!

I sooo want to program in D, but I can't really get even a simple project 
finished (I'm converting FART to D, http://fart-it.sf.net/ )

I'd say the whole CRT/libc stuff should be deprecated in D. Phobos should be 
a library using only D. If you're porting a C/C++ project, you'll link to 
some crt.d files, but I believe they should not be a part of Phobos. Lets 
get rid of those zero-terminated strings once and for all.

Lionello.
Apr 04 2005
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <d2r9ei$1rgo$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Lionello Lunesu says...

I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile 
my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:

warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and for 
those that don't have a version taking a size_t, a new method ending in _s 
(fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t for the size of the string.


Great, now I'll have another warning to add to my ignore list.  I think the VC++
team tends to be one of the best at that company, but how they can deprecate
functions required by the standard is beyond me.


This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.


Indeed.  But is it really necessary to do this just because the folks at
Microsoft can't write secure code?


But what a great decision to get rid of zero-terminated strings in D, and 
make it an array which knows it's size!


Indeed.  D does a lot of things that make sense in retrospect.


I sooo want to program in D, but I can't really get even a simple project 
finished (I'm converting FART to D, http://fart-it.sf.net/ )


What's wrong?


Sean
Apr 04 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:


I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile 
my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:

warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated





 Great, now I'll have another warning to add to my ignore list.  I think the
VC++
 team tends to be one of the best at that company, but how they can deprecate
 functions required by the standard is beyond me.


LOL, "they are the best at that company, and they still suck"

If I were to spend like $800, I would probably get CodeWarrior.
But then again, I probably am not - and just use GCC instead...

--anders
Apr 04 2005
parent reply "Lemon Sented" <lemons sent.ed> writes:
 If I were to spend like $800, I would probably get CodeWarrior.
 But then again, I probably am not - and just use GCC instead...



Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free, and is a *very* good compiler, in my
personal best 3 (along with Intel and 
CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).

Visual Studio .NET is not free, is a gargantuan resource consumer (1-2GB
install, 50MB+ running), is incredibly slow, 
takes 10 minutes to load on a 2GHz+512MB machine, and, worst of all, makes you
use the mouse for almost everything.

So, I'd suggest you *do* use VC++, but that you *do not* buy any of the Visual
Studio stuff.
Apr 04 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Lemon Sented wrote:


 Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free,
 and is a *very* good compiler, in my personal  best
 3 (along with Intel and CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).


I'm using GCC for portability and familarity
(plus that it is Free Software / Open Source),

but I found Digital Mars C/C++ to be pretty quick...
Unfortunately not available for Mac OS X or Linux.

--anders
Apr 04 2005
parent reply "Lemon Sented" <lemons sent.ed> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
news:d2sboe$6tq$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Lemon Sented wrote:


 Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free,
 and is a *very* good compiler, in my personal  best
 3 (along with Intel and CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).


 I'm using GCC for portability and familarity
 (plus that it is Free Software / Open Source),

 but I found Digital Mars C/C++ to be pretty quick...
 Unfortunately not available for Mac OS X or Linux.


It's very quick, but still costs more than its fair share of time
(wrt the other compilers) in workarounds for advanced
(c. 1998-2002) features.

But Walter's doing a great job catching up:
it's rate of improvement it better than the others.
Apr 04 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Lemon Sented" <lemons sent.ed> wrote in message
news:d2schr$7p4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 But Walter's doing a great job catching up:
 it's rate of improvement it better than the others.


Take a look at the preprocessor fixes in the new beta, making DMC++ highly
compliant in the preprocessor department - even more compliant in some cases
than Spirit Wave is (DMC++ will compile the 'book' examples correctly, Wave
doesn't).
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Carlos Santander B." <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
Lemon Sented wrote:

If I were to spend like $800, I would probably get CodeWarrior.
But then again, I probably am not - and just use GCC instead...


 
 
 
 Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free, and is a *very* good compiler, in my
personal best 3 (along with Intel and 
 CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).
 
 Visual Studio .NET is not free, is a gargantuan resource consumer (1-2GB
install, 50MB+ running), is incredibly slow, 
 takes 10 minutes to load on a 2GHz+512MB machine, and, worst of all, makes you
use the mouse for almost everything.
 
 So, I'd suggest you *do* use VC++, but that you *do not* buy any of the Visual
Studio stuff.
 
 
 


Maybe you should try DMC++.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

JP2, you'll always live in our minds
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Lemon Sented wrote:

 Visual Studio .NET is not free, is a gargantuan resource consumer
 (1-2GB install, 50MB+ running), is incredibly slow, takes 10 minutes
 to load on a 2GHz+512MB machine, and, worst of all, makes you use the
 mouse for almost everything.


Well! Chipmakers should love to hear that.

10 minutes, at 2GHz. That's 1200000000000 lines of assembler code.

Every now and then I get the feeling Bill is joking. On us.
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <d2s9oi$49g$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Lemon Sented says...

Visual Studio .NET is not free, is a gargantuan resource consumer (1-2GB
install, 50MB+ running), is incredibly slow, 
takes 10 minutes to load on a 2GHz+512MB machine, and, worst of all, makes you
use the mouse for almost everything.

So, I'd suggest you *do* use VC++, but that you *do not* buy any of the Visual
Studio stuff.


On my 1.4GHz laptop with 512MB RAM Visual Studio .NET 2003 loads in 14 seconds
if I start it up after using the OS for a while (ie. if Windows has to dump
stuff into swap space while loading the app) and in 2 seconds otherwise.  It is
fairly fast to use, and can be extremely fast if you take the trouble to disable
some of the IntelliSense stuff.  Finally, there are key combinations for
everything--I never take my hands off the keyboard while using Visual Studio.  I
know some people aren't much for IDEs, but in the IDE world it's by far the best
I've come across.  If I had to voice one major complaint about the MS
development suite it would be about that travesty of a version control system,
Visual SourceSafe.  I'm overjoyed that they're getting rid of it for the next
big Visual Studio release.

But this is a D forum so the above is really neither here nor there :)  That is,
unless someone has figured out how to inspect variables while debugging a D
application using Visual Studio or the MS standalone debugger.


Sean
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling parent bobef <bobef_member pathlink.com> writes:
Word!

In article <d2s9oi$49g$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Lemon Sented says...

 If I were to spend like $800, I would probably get CodeWarrior.
 But then again, I probably am not - and just use GCC instead...



Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free, and is a *very* good compiler, in my
personal best 3 (along with Intel and 
CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).

Visual Studio .NET is not free, is a gargantuan resource consumer (1-2GB
install, 50MB+ running), is incredibly slow, 
takes 10 minutes to load on a 2GHz+512MB machine, and, worst of all, makes you
use the mouse for almost everything.

So, I'd suggest you *do* use VC++, but that you *do not* buy any of the Visual
Studio stuff.
Apr 05 2005
prev sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and 
for
those that don't have a version taking a size_t, a new method ending in _s
(fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t for the size of the string.


 Great, now I'll have another warning to add to my ignore list.  I think 
 the VC++
 team tends to be one of the best at that company, but how they can 
 deprecate
 functions required by the standard is beyond me.


To make you use .NET? That'll be the end of VC++.


This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.


 Indeed.  But is it really necessary to do this just because the folks at
 Microsoft can't write secure code?


Yeah. They should have sticked to a segmented memory model so no code could 
even get executed on the stack in the first place... I get the impression 
they're selling this 80286 feature on P4/AMD64 as "data execution 
prevention" or something...


I sooo want to program in D, but I can't really get even a simple project
finished (I'm converting FART to D, http://fart-it.sf.net/ )


 What's wrong?


Well, first of all it's Phobos. On one side you have C runtime library-like 
functions, on the other side there are Stream, writef. And I'm trying to use 
only one of these 'apis'. I prefer using "the new way of doing things", but 
I have to get used to it all over again, get to know all the classes, 
functions.

The next problem is that I want to redesign it completely, make it OOP, 
using interfaces, so that FART can be embedded in other applications. 
Splitting the console app FART in command line interpreter, recls, fart 
core, console output. Something like that, still not too clear though.

L.
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
"Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:d2r9ei$1rgo$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile my
current projects (made using VC6), and 
 got thousands of these:

 warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

 In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and for
those that don't have a version taking a 
 size_t, a new method ending in _s (fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t
for the size of the string.

 This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.


Hmmm. Since such functions are standard, how can they be deprecated? A very
perverse take on reality.

Also, UNIX/Mac systems are written in standard C and, though they do have/have
had security issues with overflows, 
they're hardly in the Windows league. Maybe it's not just the standard library
functions???


 But what a great decision to get rid of zero-terminated strings in D, and make
it an array which knows it's size!


Agreed. I think slices are the best part of D (and, when I'm in one of those
Doldrums, the only feature that keeps me 
tagging along).


 I'd say the whole CRT/libc stuff should be deprecated in D. Phobos should be a
library using only D. If you're porting 
 a C/C++ project, you'll link to some crt.d files, but I believe they should
not be a part of Phobos. Lets get rid of 
 those zero-terminated strings once and for all.


That's an interesting take. Clean delineation of abstraction levels is a good
thing, but not always a popular one.
Apr 04 2005
parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
Hi,


 warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

 In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and 
 for those that don't have a version taking a size_t, a new method ending 
 in _s (fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t for the size of the 
 string.

 This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.


 Hmmm. Since such functions are standard, how can they be deprecated? A 
 very perverse take on reality.


Microsoft decides what you call reality, don't you get it?


 Also, UNIX/Mac systems are written in standard C and, though they do 
 have/have had security issues with overflows, they're hardly in the 
 Windows league. Maybe it's not just the standard library functions???


I bet it's not. I wonder if the Win32 API methods lstrcpy and lstrcat are 
deprecated too :-)


 I'd say the whole CRT/libc stuff should be deprecated in D. Phobos should 
 be a library using only D. If you're porting a C/C++ project, you'll link 
 to some crt.d files, but I believe they should not be a part of Phobos. 
 Lets get rid of those zero-terminated strings once and for all.


 That's an interesting take. Clean delineation of abstraction levels is a 
 good thing, but not always a popular one.


Again with the ugly: I think the C standard library is ugly. fputs(string, 
FILE*) and fprintf(FILE*, string, ..) oh come on.

L.
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Benjamin Herr <ben 0x539.de> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:

 I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile 
 my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:
 
 warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated


Hm. I assume that the WinAPI comes with evil functions to open files by
UTF-16 names, and that fopen cannot take UTF-16 strings and thus not
open all files, so it is quite inaquedate for Windows.

What am I missing?

--Benjamin
Apr 04 2005
parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
There's also a wide version (wchar_t) of fopen, but as they are 
non-standard, microsoft adds some strange prefixes to its name that I can't 
seem to remember, _wfopen or something, I dunno.

And I suppose the unicode in Windows is UTF-16 since Windows supports 
unicode aggregates?

L.

"Benjamin Herr" <ben 0x539.de> wrote in message 
news:d2sbag$6b4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Lionello Lunesu wrote:

 I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to 
 compile
 my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:

 warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated


 Hm. I assume that the WinAPI comes with evil functions to open files by
 UTF-16 names, and that fopen cannot take UTF-16 strings and thus not
 open all files, so it is quite inaquedate for Windows.

 What am I missing?

 --Benjamin
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
Oops, my bad:

fopen_s(FILE **, const char *, const char *);

It seems it's not the string that they're afraid of, but the FILE*. Indeed, 
no memory would get overwritten if the filename or open-specifier are 
illegal or too long..

L.
Apr 05 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
 I sooo want to program in D, but I can't really get even a simple project 
 finished (I'm converting FART to D, http://fart-it.sf.net/ )



What are the issues?

Thanks,

- Dave
Apr 05 2005
parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
I want to use only D stuff from Phobos. I mean, I don't want to encounter 
any pointer whatsoever, so no crt/libc stuff. The biggest problem is that I 
have to get use to the classes.

Furthermore, I want to split the project in sub-projects: a FART-core that 
does the actual magic, a command-line interpreter and a console output 
'front-end' for the console program.

Maybe I'm trying to do too many things at once..

L.

"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:d2uarn$277n$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I sooo want to program in D, but I can't really get even a simple project 
 finished (I'm converting FART to D, http://fart-it.sf.net/ )



 What are the issues?

 Thanks,

 - Dave
Apr 06 2005