Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!voder!nsc!amdahl!rtech!markh From: markh@rtech.rtech.com (Mark Hanner) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Debugging Windows Message-ID: <3239@rtech.rtech.com> Date: 28 Jul 89 02:34:11 GMT References: <30097@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <106580054@hpcvlx.HP.COM> <3229@rtech.rtech.com> <8804@june.cs.washington.edu> Reply-To: markh@rtech.UUCP (Mark Hanner) Organization: Relational Technology Inc, Alameda CA Lines: 78 In article <8804@june.cs.washington.edu> roper@june.cs.washington.edu (Michael Roper) writes: >Mark Hanner writes: >> Windows forces you to write the code that sets up the mappings >> for the video system, and unless you do it right, your program >> will probably only work for a small set of video cards. > >I'm not sure what this means. Could you give an example? I am referring to the mapping modes for text(fonts) and graphics (Petzold talks about these in chaps. 3, 12 and 15). Certainly once you get them set up and parameterize all your code, you have a nice virtual device interface, but its more code you have to write where bugs can develop. It is also all too easy to hack in hard codings that work fine on a 640x450 but produce unpredictable results on 800x600 and forget about them. I'd prefer to work only in logical units and have the system deal with the pixels (I think NeWS does a pretty good job of this...). I've seen my programs die horridly on machines with different memory set ups than mine, and I'm sure its my convoluted dynamic memory routines. I guess I want a real operating system that properly handles memory so i don't have to in my program... My main point is that windows gives me too many opportunities to slam my thumb with that I shouldn't have to worry about. Maybe Windows 3.0 will solve all these things... > >> I don't see how you can [test a program] without having alot of >> hardware. > >I think a 386 with EMS and a multi-mode VGA will cover it in most >cases. Certainly, writing conventional DOS software to run on >"every conceivable PC-compatible configuration" would require at >least this much hardware, if not significantly more. I don't think this is an either-or. Now you have to deal with BOTH DOS and Windows anomalies. There are also other layers of software (video drivers and the like) where you are forced to decide between telling your customers, "It's the driver's problem, go get a 'working' driver", or "okay, i'll hack around the goofy driver to make my program work on your system." I think we agree that this is not a simple problem. >> ...the development support tools simply aren't there (symdeb is >> barely usable for dos applications, but is ludicrous for windows. >> ...until the tools are there, building windows application will >> continue to be part alchemy. > >This is a different issue, but you'll get (almost) no argument from >me. Better tools are always welcome. Still, while a tool such as >symdeb is hard to use, it is nevertheless quite powerful. Some >very solid and complex Windows applications have been built using it. No doubt. Still doesn't make it easy to use, which brings us to.... >What tools would you like to have? This is an interesting subject >and I wouldn't mind seeing some discussion on it. My pet peeve is >the uselessness of the dialog editor. It could be made a lot smarter. >I'd like to see support for handling custom controls for one thing, >and a better user interface with operations such a one-touch centering. >As it is, I can't use it and have to edit all my dialog templates by >hand. Entertaining it's not. > > >Michael Roper >hDC Computer Corp. I want a higher level language to work in than C. Let the system keep track of my device contexts and ID's and so on, combined with a dialog editor to put the current one to shame. Favorite addition to the dialog editor: handle user defined classes with encapsulated methods to run them with... Spy also needs to decode message id's...I'll think of others... cheers, mark -- markh@rtech.COM "Crass generalizations may be justified by admitting 10 exceptions." -- marnie applegate