- use existing dll - 6 Updates
- "Linus Torvalds Was (Sorta) Wrong About C++" - 19 Updates
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Mar 13 04:58PM -0500 On 3/13/2015 4:49 PM, astro.del.cielo wrote: > Thanks ;) > -- > a.d.c. Looks to me that ZViewer is an application and the dll you speak of is used by that application. There is nothing on that site, that I saw, to indicate that they want to allow you to program anything using their dll as a dependency. What information led you to the conclusion? Or are you just mistaken in thinking you can link with any old dll? If that is the case. No you can't. You can only program against dlls that the author created with that intention...easily anyway. -- I have chosen to troll filter/ignore all subthreads containing the words: "Rick C. Hodgins", "Flibble", and "Islam" So, I won't be able to see or respond to any such messages --- |
| "astro.del.cielo" <vedi@lasignature.com>: Mar 13 10:25PM +0100 Hi all I'm very newbe so be patient :P I have a "simple" question I have to use a existing dll to comand my ipcam The dll is ZSightLib.dll and it contain ZSP_SetImageColor that i need to use I need to call it So how can i do? thanks -- a.d.c. |
| "astro.del.cielo" <vedi@lasignature.com>: Mar 13 10:54PM +0100 Il 13/03/2015 22:45, Paavo Helde ha scritto: > And then you have to know the exact parameter types and calling conventions > for your function, write them down in a function pointer typedef, cast the > pointer you got from GetProcAddress() to that type and call it! Profit! I'm not a programmer (just on school) So my level is poor I only use ZSP_SetImageColor so i can make a script to invoke color with my ipcam. I think the solution is to make a small program that invoke ZSP_SetImageColor thanks -- a.d.c. |
| "astro.del.cielo" <vedi@lasignature.com>: Mar 13 10:49PM +0100 Il 13/03/2015 22:32, Vir Campestris ha scritto: > the mode to open it in, and the type of the return data. That's all > documented - but this DLL isn't on the net. I looked. > Andy You can find it here: http://surveillance.zmodo.com/support-software Zviewer for PC => Zviewer2.0.0.9_Setup.exe Installing program you can find ZSightLib.dll I don't have any .h file I only inspect ZSightLib.dll with dllexp.exe (NIRSOFT) I don't know if there is a way to interface with it.. Thanks ;) -- a.d.c. |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Mar 14 05:47AM On Fri, 2015-03-13, Christopher Pisz wrote: >> I understand right? >> I don't know this > Tis true. 99% true. If you have a hacker mind (which you can have without being an actual programmer) you can try to work around the obstacles and using trial and error and, using all kinds of ugly tricks, accomplish what you want. It's nothing I can help with, but I wanted to point it out since astro.del.cielo seems to show some trace of promise. Great things sometimes start with someting absurd. Linus Torvalds: "Hey, I have a PC with a MMU here. I could theoretically write a Unix clone for it. I'd probably have to learn C programming first ..." /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| "astro.del.cielo" <vedi@lasignature.com>: Mar 13 11:05PM +0100 Il 13/03/2015 22:58, Christopher Pisz ha scritto: > Looks to me that ZViewer is an application and the dll you speak of is > used by that application. Yes! > Or are you just mistaken in thinking you can link with any old dll? > If that is the case. No you can't. You can only program against dlls > that the author created with that intention...easily anyway. You are say that i can use dll only if the autor allow to use. I understand right? I don't know this -- a.d.c. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 13 04:30PM +0100 On 13/03/15 16:00, Stefan Ram wrote: > have reached the point where they can use the language > productively in their lives, while some students in my C++ > courses might never reach that point. Have you considered Python rather than VB, with LibreOffice rather than MS Office? I haven't actually use Python with LO - I've never felt the need - but I am curious to your opinion as someone who actually teaches beginners' programming classes. |
| Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de>: Mar 13 03:11PM +0100 On 11.03.2015 20:35, Paavo Helde wrote: > In the extreme case where each byte must be conserved, I agree that with C- > style arrays and lots of work one can win some bytes. But as C is a proper > subset of C++, It isn't. > the same code can then be used as C++ code and still have > better type-checking and other goodies. Setup of NVIC configuration for embedded systems: Designated initializers is the only practical solution. C++ doesn't have those, sadly. Cheers, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 14 08:20AM +1300 Johannes Bauer wrote: >> better type-checking and other goodies. > Setup of NVIC configuration for embedded systems: Designated > initializers is the only practical solution. C++ doesn't have those, sadly. There I agree. A pointless omission from C++11. My embedded C++ projects usually end up with one C TU to perform static initialisation. -- Ian Collins |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Mar 13 03:04PM +0100 JiiPee schreef op 13-Mar-15 om 2:20 AM: > Why use a language with less options? :) One good reason is to look at it from the *reader* instead of the writer perspective: YOU might settle on a reasonable subset of your language to write your code in, but each feature will end up in someones subset, so to read and maintain code you will need to understand the whole language. Wouter |
| Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de>: Mar 13 04:19PM +0100 On 13.03.2015 15:39, Martijn Lievaart wrote: >> I second that emotion. > I don't. I've seen tons of shitty code by C++ programmers who should read > Meyers to get the basics right. Yes, and it's a cop-out to just claim these were not "real" C++ programmers, and were ACTUALLY just coding C. Because "real" C++ programmers do everything right, of course. The problem is not that C++ is a bad language, it's a fantastic one. The problem rather is that it is MUCH more complicated than C is, yet somehow creates the illusion that it's just "C with goodies". It is very easy to create C++ code that is impossible to refactor because it's design is so broken. Since C does not offer a lot of room to play with, it's much harder (but sure enough still happens on a daily basis). That said, both languages are nothing for beginners. I can only shake my head when people suggest C++ as a first language. Cheers, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| Martijn Lievaart <m@rtij.nl.invlalid>: Mar 13 03:37PM +0100 On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:03:35 +0100, David Brown wrote: > steps of programming. But while I'd not recommend anyone to bother > learning VB, since there are better alternatives, if the choice was only > C++ or VB for first language, then VB is a better choice.) Do note that VB.net is a half decent language, but VB up till version 6 or most forms of VBA are so buggy and badly documented, I would advice to learn C++ instead. M4 |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 13 07:29PM >some C programmers who claim to know C++ (or mathematicians who claim to >know C) can cause. I have been through the recovery programme so my >trauma is greatly reduced. But it is still there luring in the background. With all the insults that litter Christopher's posts, one must assume he hates C programmers. I find this whole C++ purity argument specious. |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Mar 13 02:58PM +0100 > If the implementation does not eliminate all virtuals of class hierarchy > that have been never called virtually then it is issue of quality of > implementation. That is theoretically true. But for me (and I guess for nearly everyone) quality of implementation aspects are often of evrriding importance: practical heap implementations for instance have an a-priori unknown effect on the real-time behaviour of my code. You can say that that is not the 'fault' of C++, but for me the consequence is still that in general I can't the heap in my real-time code. Fortunately when engineer has problems with compiler > then engineer can fix the compiler. That is theoretically true, but totally unpractical in practice. Wouter van Ooijen |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 14 08:15AM +1300 Stefan Ram wrote: > C++ > #include <iostream> > int main() { ::std::cout << "Hello, World" << "\n"; } Maybe the superfluous colons put them off :) -- Ian Collins |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 13 05:47PM >like, a faster processor is more expensive, and may require multiple >chips (such as a processor, maybe an external bridge, external RAM >chips, ...). The newer server processors are moving towards SoC. Cavium's ThunderX, for example - 48x 64-bit arm cores, 2x 40Gb ethernet w/ SR-IOV (or 8x 10Gb et alia), 16 SATA controllers, 16 lanes of PCIe3.0, various accelerators, four memory controllers - all on one (rather big) chip. Intel is also producing server SoC's (not just Atom). |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Mar 13 05:03PM -0500 On 3/13/2015 8:21 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > I think most of us would prefer that you keep your rants to > yourself. Here as well. Stick to discussion of C++ and > leave your foolish hatred of C programmers at home. Hold on there cowboy. What is this entire thread about? It is OK, to hold discussions when the point of view is "C is better than C++" but not the reverse? -- I have chosen to troll filter/ignore all subthreads containing the words: "Rick C. Hodgins", "Flibble", and "Islam" So, I won't be able to see or respond to any such messages --- |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 13 04:03PM +0100 On 13/03/15 15:37, Martijn Lievaart wrote: > Do note that VB.net is a half decent language, but VB up till version 6 > or most forms of VBA are so buggy and badly documented, I would advice to > learn C++ instead. My experience with VB is almost all with VB3 (it was the only serious RAD tool for Win3.1, until Delphi came out). Yes, it was buggy and badly documented - and on the couple of occasions when I tried to talk to MS technical support, I knew a great deal more than they did. But for simple projects, it is relatively easy to get the idea of programming without being faced with the complications of compilers and build processes, or the relatively complex syntax of C++. A "Hello, world" project is easier in VB than C++. However, it is even easier in Python. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 13 01:19PM >> Cheers, >> Johannes >Common C programmer mentality. Always a fail. Insults and intolerance seem to be the extent of your discourse. <rant elided> |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Mar 13 03:01PM +0100 JiiPee schreef op 13-Mar-15 om 8:04 AM: >> better off fighting our enemies on bikes? >> Wouter > some would say that its not good to make war at all.... And I agree, but that would force me to find another argument that is understandable to the war-minded world in general ;) Wouter |
| Martijn Lievaart <m@rtij.nl.invlalid>: Mar 13 03:39PM +0100 On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:34:29 -0500, Christopher Pisz wrote: >> The vast overwhelming majority of shitty C++ code I've seen is written >> by people who keep writing C code and calling it C++. > I second that emotion. I don't. I've seen tons of shitty code by C++ programmers who should read Meyers to get the basics right. M4 |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 14 08:10AM +1300 Scott Lurndal wrote: > I think most of us would prefer that you keep your rants to > yourself. Here as well. Stick to discussion of C++ and > leave your foolish hatred of C programmers at home. I don't see hated, just one who has been scarred for life by the havoc some C programmers who claim to know C++ (or mathematicians who claim to know C) can cause. I have been through the recovery programme so my trauma is greatly reduced. But it is still there luring in the background. -- Ian Collins |
| BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com>: Mar 13 06:11PM -0500 On 3/13/2015 12:47 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > (or 8x 10Gb et alia), 16 SATA controllers, 16 lanes of PCIe3.0, various accelerators, > four memory controllers - all on one (rather big) chip. > Intel is also producing server SoC's (not just Atom). could be, but these chips look pretty high-end (and likely a bit expensive as well...). could be wrong, couldn't find a unit cost for them... but, I am guessing it is probably a fair bit more than $1 or $5 per-unit or similar... |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Mar 14 06:26AM On Thu, 2015-03-12, Ian Collins wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 1:12:16 PM UTC-5, Johannes Bauer wrote: >> Please don't swear here. > He didn't.... Not that I care, but he did use the word "hell" as an interjection. That counts as swearing around here (in that area, swedish and english have the same architecture, so to speak, for curses). /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 13 01:21PM >dedicated to the hell C programmers working on C++ put me through. I'll >see if I can dig up the page on my HD at home, if you'd like to read >through years worth of my rants. I think most of us would prefer that you keep your rants to yourself. Here as well. Stick to discussion of C++ and leave your foolish hatred of C programmers at home. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment