+- Hack Forums (https://hackforums.net)
+-- Forum: Tech (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=444)
+--- Forum: Coding (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=151)
+---- Forum: Software Development (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=118)
+---- Thread: [C] .NET Isn't Needed for VC++ 2010 Compiled Programs, You Morons (/showthread.php?tid=842857)
Pages: Pages
1
2
.NET Isn't Needed for VC++ 2010 Compiled Programs, You Morons - Montage - Nov 23, 2010
Seriously, I'm getting tired of this shit.
If you compile C/C++ programs with Microsoft Visual Studio/Microsoft Visual C++ Express, your programs will not require .NET to run. Whoever tells you otherwise is a fucking moron.
Nor do all your projects have to have stuff like stdafx.h either you idiots. Stop posting that all C++ code in VC++ 2010 need that header; they don't.
So, for the dense among you, here's a recap:
- None of the 2010 editions of Visual C++ require .NET for the compiled C/C++ programs.
- VC++ 2010 does not force you to use the stdafx.h header. You can have a completely clean project to start with.
- No, the supposedly faster binaries from VC++6 are not worth using an outdated non-standard compiled with a inferior IDE.
You got it?
If you recommend VC++6 due to VC++ 2010's '.NET dependencies' you don't have clue what you're talking about. End of story.
Yes, you can use C++ with .NET, but it isn't mandatory, and is only really used for large amounts of native/.NET interop work, because P/Invoke is too unwieldy.
* - Apo123 - Nov 23, 2010
About damn time a topic like this was made.
* - Rue - Nov 23, 2010
Where did you get that shit from? Your ass?
And you believe what comes out of your ass?
Of course VC++ 2010 projects don't need .NET. But they support it.
* - shadow_69_91 - Nov 23, 2010
I thought the .NET framework was only for WinGUI programs.... Guess I was wrong.
* - Unfair Advantage - Nov 23, 2010
the VC6 IDE is not non-standard or inferior.
C++ 2010 always had an option not to compile to CRL, Although most people don't know how to turn it off ending up with a .net reliant app.
Anyway I've always hated managed C++ and I don't like the big heavy IDE. I'll be sticking with smaller less resource hogging IDE's.
* - Montage - Nov 24, 2010
To some of the above posters, I claimed .NET wasn't 'mandatory' and 'required'. That doesn't mean that the .NET option isn't available, else I would've said 'not available'. Reading is a great attribute -- Try acquiring it.
As the the GUI thing, there are 5 toolkits available from MS, for C++. WinAPI, MFC, ATL, WinForms, and WPF. The latter 2 do require .NET, the former doesn't. MFC and ATL don't require .NET, but they also require the professional version of VC++.
MFC can be statically linked, and has a (rather lame) visual designer. So you can actually 'draw' your GUIs, and have no .NET dependencies, even though the end-result binary is very large.
And yes, VC++6 is non-standard and inferior. Modern C++ won't compile because it doesn't support standard C++ properly, and the IDE sucks majorly, especially on platforms is wasn't designed for, like Vista, 2008 Server and Windows 7. You can't even compare the IDE to 2010.
Also, I don't give a fuck if the IDE slows my computer. Processing time is cheaper than my time, and 2010 is the most productive C++ IDE out there.
* - 0xebfe - Dec 1, 2010
Rated this thread a 5, I thought it was obvious that Visual C++ (if you can even call it something other than just C++) is not a .NET language. But I guess I was wrong again...Damn it HF why can't your members be more like Montage!?!!?
Also MFC applications I've made in the past have strange dependencies and I can't get my friends to run it without downloading some .dll's, so I remain sticking with the Windows API, my one and only love in this world.
* - PoZHx - Dec 2, 2010
Win32 and MFC does not require .NET but requires Visual C++ Runtime if you compile with /MD runtime library (default settings)
CLR does use .NET check for yourself in the IAT or use .NET decompiler such as reflector.
* - Shantari - Dec 2, 2010
(Dec 1, 2010 10:58 PM)shellc0de Wrote: Visual C++ (if you can even call it something other than just C++)
Are you fucking stupid?
It is C++, Visual C++ is just the name of Microsofts IDE and Compiler for C++, it's the same language -_-
* - 0xebfe - Dec 2, 2010
(Dec 2, 2010 06:32 AM)Shantari Wrote: Are you fucking stupid?Yeah buddy chill, I'm aware it's an IDE. What are you getting at?
It is C++, Visual C++ is just the name of Microsofts IDE and Compiler for C++, it's the same language -_-
* - Montage - Dec 3, 2010
(Dec 2, 2010 06:18 AM)PoZHx Wrote: Win32 and MFC does not require .NET but requires Visual C++ Runtime if you compile with /MD runtime library (default settings)
CLR does use .NET check for yourself in the IAT or use .NET decompiler such as reflector.
The .NET Common Language Runtime require the .NET runtime? Holy shit -- Way to crack the case, Sherlock.
Yes, it requires a C++ runtime, but I've also ran my C++ programs out the box with no additional runtimes installed on 2000, XP, Vista, 2003, 7, 2008 out the box. So obviously that runtime isn't 100% required, except on very old Windows systems that don't have the DLLs to support the full standard C++ library by default -- Or at least the common parts most people use.
Windows itself is written in C/C++! How can it be running if it isn't satisfying its own runtime dependencies?
* - Navigator - Dec 3, 2010
/MT for statically linked runtime.
* - PoZHx - Dec 3, 2010
(Dec 3, 2010 10:07 AM)Montage Wrote: The .NET Common Language Runtime require the .NET runtime? Holy shit -- Way to crack the case, Sherlock.
Lol. Well done.
(Dec 3, 2010 10:07 AM)Montage Wrote: Yes, it requires a C++ runtime, but I've also ran my C++ programs out the box with no additional runtimes installed on 2000, XP, Vista, 2003, 7, 2008 out the box. So obviously that runtime isn't 100% required, except on very old Windows systems that don't have the DLLs to support the full standard C++ library by default -- Or at least the common parts most people use.Incorrect.. XP, 2000 doesn't have VC++ runtime pre-installed.
without any code using default settings of VC++ 2008
[img]http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5792/iat.png[/img]
Oh, look VC++ Runtime dll required...
Ok, lets try run it on XP x86 Pro without SP:
[img]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/4787/errorfq.png[/img]
Oh, look we have an error.
You must of used /MT runtime library so doesn't require VC++ Runtime library.
(Dec 3, 2010 10:07 AM)Montage Wrote: Windows itself is written in C/C++! How can it be running if it isn't satisfying its own runtime dependencies?Microsoft will of stripped down dependencies obviously.
* - AdV - Dec 3, 2010
Microsoft programs link against msvcrt.dll, which is the original C standard library that came with any system newer than and including windows 2000. The newer visual studios link to newer versions of the C standard library that are thread safe, they completely removed the ability to link against the old library which is retarded. However, microsoft still links to the old library, they don't want the newer thread safe libraries that they force on their customers.
This was an interesting blog post on the matter that I enjoyed reading: http://kobyk.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/dynamically-linking-with-msvcrtdll-using-visual-c-2005/
* - Forrest101 - Dec 4, 2010
LOL! If you use the debugg for compiling the it will ofc req .net, but if u will compile it as release it will not be needed..