Since the VS C compiler has never done C99 very well I have always done my native code C development for desktop using a (terrible) port of gcc to windows. Anyway, I was wondering will WINRT's "native code" platform allow code from other compilers or will we need to use VS?
And when I say WINRT I mean the APIs not the OS... or at least I think I do... whatever metro apps want to call themselves now...
I just want to know if switching to metro development will be a good idea any time in the near future?
You do not need VS. But you do need a native compiler.
Related
This is a question related to Get OS-Version in WinRT Metro App C# but not its duplicate.
Is there any option to detect from a Metro application whether there is the desktop feature available on the system? I understand that detection of the OS version is not supported and that is OK imo.
However my metro app needs to know whether there is a Desktop available on the system it is running on.
By Desktop I mean extendable desktop - desktop, where 3rd party desktop applications can be installed. As we know ARM based units will have the desktop too, but only with Microsoft built-in programs.
Can I distinguish whether my Metro app is running on a ARM based tablet with non-extendable desktop vs on all other (Intel based) devices with extendable desktop?
After some more extensive search I found GetNativeSystemInfo method. The hint was right away on SO site - this question. This approach seems to be fully supported by Windows Store applications - the App Cert Kit test ran smoothly despite the fact that pinvoke was used.
I ended up with the following code:
[DllImport("kernel32.dll")]
internal static extern void GetNativeSystemInfo(ref SystemInfo lpSystemInfo);
internal static bool IsArmBased()
{
var sysInfo = new SystemInfo();
GetNativeSystemInfo(ref sysInfo);
return sysInfo.wProcessorArchitecture == ProcessorArchitectureArm; //ushort 5
}
This seems to be as a solution I was looking for. Please tell me if not or make me aware of whatever problems connected to such an approach. Thank you.
If this is HTML, you can use window.cpuClass to get if it's ARM, x86 or amd64.
A non dynamic version is to use target specific architectures rather than AnyCPU, and then use the flavours with #ifdefs to hard code it at build time. You have to submit 3 packages to the store, however.
Use a try {} catch(){} to access those libraries, if anything goes wrong assume the ARM version.
I want to start developing for Windows but I want to preserve some of my frameworks that I've used with NSFoundation. I want to build them on Windows using GNUStep and maybe write the whole application using GNUStep.
Would that be considered bad practice?
If I had to deploy apps on Windows, I'd use GNUStep, CocoaTron, or anything else I could find that let me avoid .NET or Win32. I might even settle for Qt if I had to.
Speaking for myself, I prefer Cocotron over GNUStep. A Cocotron application is self-contained, existing entirely in its own subdirectory under C:\Program Files. It also looks and acts more like a native Windows app. A GNUStep application requires a full install of the whole GNUStep environment, and doesn't blend in very well - it looks and acts just like what it is, a *nix app that happens to be running on Windows. Overall, I think Cocotron gives a better end-user experience.
On the other paw, the GNUStep developer tools can run on Windows, whereas Cocotron requires a developer to work entirely in Xcode and cross-compile to produce a Windows (or other non-Mac) binary. Whether that counts as a pro or a con depends on how much you like Xcode.
I'm in the process of learning Objective-c but would like to run code snippets via some sort of emulator on Windows — preferably web based.
I want to understand Objective-C syntax and walk through common code examples, probably via some sort of console. I would probably leave any framework type learning for when I get onto my MacBook, at home.
I have done a quick Google with no success.
It depends what you mean. Objective-C can be compiled by GCC, so you can happily create Objective-C test apps on Windows. If you are talking about the frameworks though, which contain most of the power when developing on OSX then it's a no unfortunately. You can get libraries compatible with SOME parts from gnustep.org (and run them on Linux/BSD), but it's still not the full OSX "stack".
You can get OS X running in VMWare, but it's illegal, so you best bet is to pickup a cheap Mac that can run Tiger/Leopard and use that.
Looked at GNUStep?
Another possibility is to use Cappuccino.
http://cappuccino.org
It is a cocoa-like framework for javascript, and looks very similar to objective-c.
The language is called objective-j.
AFAIK you can use the GNU compiler to compile Objective-C, so that should be usable on Windows too. This should be sufficient to get you started with programming the language.
For Mac OS X however the language is only part of the equation, you will want to program against the libraries of Mac OS X, and for that you will really need a machine running it.
I'm not sure which libraries are present and which are not but you can run OS X Server in a VM (providing you have an OS X Server license of course). This would allow you to have a virtual Mac environment on your Windows system.
As has been mentioned above, there's no way to achieve what you want natively within Windows as the underlying system is obviously different.
Good luck.
There also is The Cocotron.
Greetings,
I want to write a small cross-platform utility program with GUI in it. What language/GUI-library should I stick to? Is it possible whatsoever?
This is gonna be a small program, so I don't want to make people download JVM or .NET Framework. Is it possible to develop it natively?
Update 1.
By "natively" I mean that the end result will be native code without intermediate layers like Java Virtual Machine or .NET Common Language Runtime
Update 2.
A FREE solution is preferable ;)
If you know C or C++ the first cross platform GUI framework I can think of are:
QT (C++, proprietary but free with the LGPL licensing)
wxWidgets (C++, the most complete and stable but also huge)
FLTK (C++)
FOX (C++)
IUP (C, simpler and cleaner than the ones above)
If you know Pascal, you can try freepascal+Lazarus. I've never used it, though.
The problem is: If you do not want to have a GUI but you do not want to ask the user to download an eternal API, Framework or virtual machine to run it in, be it TCL/TK, Java or QT etc. then you get lost pretty fast.
The reason is: You would have to rebuild all the (GUI) functionality those APIs, frameworks and virtual machines provide you with to be platform independent. And that's a whole lot of work to do... .
On the other side: The Java virtual machine is installed on nearly any operating system from scratch, why not give this one a shot?
You want to develop a cross-platform program natively? Uh...I don't think that'll work, mainly because that phrase is a paradox. If you write native code, it by its very nature will only run on the platform you programmed it for. ;-) That's what the Frameworks are all about.
So what you should do instead is use a very slim framework if your program is going to be so small. itsmatt's idea of Qt is a possibility.
WxWindows? Oh, it's called WxWidgets now: http://www.wxwidgets.org/
wxWidgets has bindings to all sorts of languages - python for instance, if your app is small enough.
Lazarus is great. GTK2 on Linux, win32/64 on Windows, WINCE on euh, Wince. It even uses Carbon on Mac (working on COCOA). Also easy to sell to your boss (the code is Delphi compatible)
How about Python using Qt or Wx and then using PythonToExe to make a 'distributable'
Thought will have to giving to the development to ensure that no native functionality is used (i.e. registry etc.) Also things like line breaks in text files will have different escape characters so will need to be handled
Which OS's do you have in mind when you say cross-platform?
As Epaga correctly points out, native and cross-platform are mutually exclusive. You can either write multiple versions that run natively on multiple platforms, or you need to use some cross-platform framework.
In the case of the cross-platform framework approach, there will always be extra installs required. For example, many here suggest using Python and one of its frameworks. This would necessitate instructing people to install python - and potentially the framework - first.
If you are aiming at Windows and OS X (and are prepared to experiment with alpha-release code for Linux if support for that OS is required), I'd highly recommend you take a look at using Adobe AIR for cross-platform GUI applications.
I agree with Georgi, Java is the way to go. With a bit of work, you can make your desktop application work as a Java applet too (so that users do not need to actively download anything at all). See http://www.geogebra.org as an example of an application with runs smoothly as a cross-platform Java application AND has a simple port to a web applet.
Two other advantages to using Java are:
They have extensive libraries for building the UI, including UI component builders.
The Java runtime framework is generally updated automatically for the user.
One disadvantage:
The version of Java installed on your end users computer may not be totally compatible with your application, requiring you to code to the lowest likely denominator.
Try RealBasic. Visual Basic-like syntax, targets Win32, OS X and Linux. I don't know any details about targetting Linux, but for any cross-platform development I've done between Win32 and OS X its been a dream.
http://www.realbasic.com
Edit: Generates native executables. There is a small cost - $100.
Have you looked at Qt?
Flash? It's installed pretty much everywhere.
If it "HAS" to be Desktop use Qt. Nothing beats it right now.
However personally I gave up on desktop and any UI based project I do is normally Browser/Server based. You can easily write a little custom server that listens to some port so the program can run locally with no need for your users to install Apache or have access to the net. I have a small Lua, Python and C++ framework I made for that purpose (Want to add Javascript for the backend with V8 :)
If you're going to look at Qt and WxWidgets, don't forget to also check out GTK+ !
I agree with David Wees and Georgi,
Java is cross-platformness par excellence. You literally write once and run everywhere. With no need of compiling your code for each target OS or bitness, no worries about linking against anything, etc.
Only thing is, as you pointed out, that a JRE must be installed, but it's quick and straightforward to do even for novice end-users (it's a matter of clicking "Next>" a few times in the installer).
And with Java Web Start deployment gets even easier: the user just clicks the launch button on a webpage and the application runs (if the proper JVM is installed according to what specified in the JNLP descriptor) or the user gets redirected to the Java download page (if no suitable JVM is found).
Is there an IDE that I can load on a Blackberry, E71, or an iPhone?
Apple released iPhone SDK for XCode a while back, check out developer.apple.com and Nokia also release their own SDK check out forum.nokia.com
But for pure Java Midlet goodness, i would recommend Netbeans (netbeans.org) their netbeans mobile application editor is a gem, second to none.
To answer your question, i don't think any phone is powerful enough to compile and test the code on themselves, so no ...
Not that I know of, typically you'll develop apps on a desktop machine (PC/MAC whatever) and download/control the application on the phone. Also I don't think Java is available on a standard (non-cracked) iPhone.
There was a palm based C compiler. I had some trouble finding it though, but it's called OnBoard-C. It didn't exactly have an IDE, it compiled notes. Considering there's a lack of embedded compilers, I'd be surprised to find full embedded IDEs. Oh... I recall there being a Scheme or Lisp too.
This maybe premature but, congrats, you just found a market niche.