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- No, the supposedly faster binaries from VC++6 are not worth using an outdated non-standard compiled with a inferior IDE.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.
About damn time a topic like this was made.
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.
I thought the .NET framework was only for WinGUI programs.... Guess I was wrong.
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.
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.
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.
(Dec 1, 2010 10:58 PM)0xebfe 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 -_-
(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?
/MT for statically linked runtime.
(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.
P.S. You can statically link MSVCR90.dll in your program. Then you don't have a runtime requirement.
Use the power of /MT.
(Dec 4, 2010 03:16 PM)iVo1d Wrote: are u fucking retarded? I tested to use the release and debugg file on my virtual box with win-xp sp2(clean no .net) the release file worked but not the debugg one.. it started working just after i installed .net on it
uh, he's right. I wouldn't go insulting him. It doesn't matter what you compile it as. The default is a dynamically linked application to the runtime.
You need to specify the flag /MT or /MTd for statically linking the MSVCR90 library. The default is /MD (release) and /MDd (debug).
I thought it was obvious ... But I guess that if you're pointing that out then it was needed ...
(Dec 4, 2010 03:22 PM)sbrg Wrote: No, he is not. God, you people are so fucking stupid I am amazed you function.
The .NET framework IS NOT THE FUCKING RUNTIME. You need the runtime, or you can statically link it, BUT IT IS NOT THE RUNTIME. Read the original post, for fuck's sake, before I sell all my possessions so that I can hunt you all down and beat you to a pulp with blunt object.
I don't think you understood me correctly.
I was saying the person I quoted was incorrect and the person that he quoted was correct. It seems that multiple quotes are not automatically quoted on this MyBB forum software.
So, to be explicit, iVo1d is incorrect. sbrg is correct.
As I already mentioned it here: https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?ti...pid8108126
|
