The compiler advantage

[Chris Holbrook]

In these times of high resolution screens, it is frustrating to see programs that are not High DPI aware and graphic applications that use the obsolete GDI. My headers provide support for DirectX, Direct2D, DirectWrite, Windows Image Component, etc., but only Patrice has tried it.

While taking your point about using W$ COM interfaces, I don't share your frustration, because I am not a "leading-edge" guy. For my commercial purposes, hardware could have stopped at any point since 1983, although it hasn't, and I have been dragged along with developments. Innovations in the last eight years - Windows replacing MSDOS, using the PowerBASIC compilers (amongst others), SQLite, Collections, GDI/GDI+ graphics. Currently celebrating the non-demise of PowerBASIC, Inc by writing a character mode framework in which to redevelop feature-poor MSDOS applications for Windows 7, which M$ says is good until 2025.

[John Spikowski]

C++ compilers already have headers and I'm no currently interested in other dialects of BASIC. Besides, I'm not a supporter of open source.

Thank you for your concise answer to my pestering you in a direction of no interest.

Just the text versions of your includes as a resource will have value for years.

P.S.

Thanks for the karma reset. Rejoining at a -25 was hard to overcome.

[Edwin Knoppert]

Karma -79 Looks like a lot of hurting PB'ers out there. Based on what I've seen with Patrice's awaking from being a PB zombie is there still remains a desire to save the rest even though the attempt may be futile.

They shouldn't nitpick the nitpicker so much.
I like nitpicking, it brings just a different perspective and often food for thought, even if one is wrong, it doesn't matter..

[John Spikowski]

They shouldn't nitpick the nitpicker so much.
I like nitpicking, it brings just a different perspective and often food for thought, even if one is wrong, it doesn't matter..

That's the best definition of what a forum is suppose to be that I have heard in some time. Thanks!

[Chris Holbrook]

Would you be willing to give my version of DOSBox a try and let me know what you think?

In principle, yes, but best after I get my new keyboard, currently using a remote keyboard app which is ingenious but painful.
I'll let you know when. Do you have a list of enhancements somewhere?

[John Spikowski]

I'll let you know when. Do you have a list of enhancements somewhere?

This is what I noticed between the aDosBox version I downloaded pre-compiled and DOSBox I compiled local on Android using the latest CVS source and the latest SDL 2 for Android.

• Uses maximum screen real estate and reacts to on-the-fly orientation rotations.
  
• Uses the latest DOSBox source tree.
  
• Uses the latest SDL 2 source tree.
  
• Has the C4droid SDL enhancements that will show up in an upcoming release.
  
• Fully configurable set of button controls to use as hot keys specific to the app without having to pop the keyboard.
  
• Seems to run faster and smother being native compiled. g++ may be taking advantage of ARM RISC features the NDK doesn't offer.
  
• Having source and being able to recompile the emulator on the device is a big plus. (meal and the chief for free)
  
• Seems to run everything DOS based I've thrown at it. (even low level direct memory addressing stuff)
  

[Chris Holbrook]

Seems to run everything DOS based I've thrown at it. (even low level direct memory addressing stuff)

My MSDOS app uses BIOS calls and direct screen memory addressing and inline assembler inside Borland Pascal and that works fine - DosBox version is  precompiled v0.74.

[John Spikowski]

DosBox version is  precompiled v0.74.

That is same pre-compiled version I started off with. (see early posts to AllBasic) If that's what your running, you really need to try my native compiled version.

Old pre-compiled version of DOSBox

[Frederick J. Harris]

Chris Holbrook says ...

While taking your point about using W$ COM interfaces, I don't share your frustration, because I am not a "leading-edge" guy. For my commercial purposes, hardware could have stopped at any point since 1983, although it hasn't, and I have been dragged along with developments. Innovations in the last eight years - Windows replacing MSDOS, using the PowerBASIC compilers (amongst others), SQLite, Collections, GDI/GDI+ graphics. Currently celebrating the non-demise of PowerBASIC, Inc by writing a character mode framework in which to redevelop feature-poor MSDOS applications for Windows 7, which M$ says is good until 2025.

That's a lot like me too, Chris, and I suspect a lot of others.  I work for a large forestry organization, and I write most of our data processing and database apps.  What it boils down to is should I spend a couple days writing data processing code that could save perhaps a man year of work by others, or spend a couple of days trying to figure out how to make rounded corners on my buttons that won't save anyone one second of time or save one dollar?  Or, alternately, try this ...  Like most coders I prefer to write code over writing help docs.  But most of my mission critical apps we use don't have much in the way of help docs written for them.  So should I spend my time writting help docs for these various apps, or should I spend my limited time pouring over Jose's and Patrice's code figuring out how I can make my apps look like the latest Norton Anti-virus software programs and other commercial offerings with various themes, translucent objects, so on and so forth?  Its certainly not that I think the modern look is without value; its just that for me other things outweigh it in importance.   

[Chris Holbrook]

... should I spend my limited time pouring over Jose's and Patrice's code ...

exactly. Yet I - among many, I'm sure - am so grateful to them for their generosity in sharing that code because I can mine it for the parts I need to do new tricks, and I post my own code "over there" sometimes to interpret, sometimes to stimulate discussion (which usually doesn't happen). The sheer volume of work which Jose has turned out is so impressive. I wish he worked for me, and in a way he does! This sort of thing is why I chose to get into Windows via PowerBASIC, because I saw that there were a few really good programmers (I've been around long enough to recognise the difference) who were both sharing and supportive. It would be a hell of a pity if that contribution was to dry up.
 

[Frederick J. Harris]

exactly. Yet I - among many, I'm sure - am so grateful to them ...

Very true.  I'd say the support Jose and others provided was the reason I chose PowerBASIC as my main programming language.  I felt the underlying language itself was extremely good, but at the time I became interested in it - middle to late 90s, there was no support for COM.  Because of the work Jose did in conjunction with Bob Zale's incorporation of COM support into the language with PowerBASIC For Windows Version 7, I decided to make PB my main language over Visual Basic.   

[John Spikowski]

I'm wondering if it is possible / practical to create a Doxygen version of José's include files.

[James C. Fuller]

From the readme file of the headers.

This project is an effort to translate the C headers of the Microsoft Platform SDK for Windows to PowerBASIC™.
This version has been updated using the SDK for Windows 7.1.
These headers are freeware, not public domain. This means that you can use them for your own purposes, even in
commercial applications, without paying a fee, but not to make derivative works from, sell or redistribute without
permission. Also you must assume the entire risk of using them. Downloading the software indicates that you accept
these terms.

James

[José Roca]

Open Source supporters should learn the meaning of Freeware.

[John Spikowski]

Open Source supporters should learn the meaning of PB Freeware.

Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.

Doxygen is a industry standard code documentation system. Are you saying that documenting or even talking about your include files outside the scope to PowerBASIC is a violation of your right to use clause?

For those unfamiliar with Doxygen, here is a very old version of the ScriptBasic source I ran through the Doxygen tool to produce this HTML version of the documentation.