On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ray Burkholder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Oh heck yes, I am completely addicted to Visual Assist. Until Eclipse >> or whatever gets something equivalent in functionality, it will >> *never* be useful to me. And I know many others like me who think the >> same way. > > I have found that Visual Assist can't deal with the heavy duty template > stuff found in WTL applications. Or is that a figment of my imagination?
It can get confused at times, but forcing a rebuild of its cache usually fixes that. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ray Burkholder <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Bhushan Inamdar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Coming to .NET ADOs and stuff, you are right. I did not know that we >> can >> >> work with ODBC in similar fashion as ADO.NET or can we? Can we have >> a >> >> disconnected architecture and caching capabilities? How performant >> is that >> >> using ODBC? >> >> You would need to build some of those functionalities on top of ODBC, >> but in general, ODBC is *slow*. It was not designed to be fast, and >> it has a limited feature set as it is designed to work with all >> databases (but none of them 'well'), that is why ADO.Net added so many >> features because it is trying to work around the slowdowns caused be >> ODBC. I would stay away from it. I had to work with it for a few >> years about a decade ago, it was horrible, and it has not changed... >> Wait until Wt::DBO comes out and adds more back-ends. :) > > In a possible upcoming project, I'll need to access data in an MS SQL > database. Is there a recommendation on a C++ driver that gets close (ie is > fast) with regards to query and stored procedure access against the > database? No clue, I mostly deal with MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQLite. I know the boost one that is being developed plans to work with that among many others. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ray Burkholder <[email protected]> wrote: >> XML: <my-tag attr=42>Hi!</my-tag> >> Sexp: (my-tag (attr 42) Hi!) >> > > But isn't the '</my-tag>' in xml the equivalent of the ')' in sexp, so you > still have a tail tag, no matter what you call it or what it does. Xml is > just a bit wordier, and in a fashion, it is self-error-checking. If one > drops a ')', processing sync may be lost, but with an un-end-tag, you can > get an idea of what was lost. True, "</my-tag>" == ")", but considering this classic HTML snippet that fails an XML check: <b><i>text</b></i> True, XML will check you on it, but that should not even have been an issue anyway, here is the same thing in Sexp: (b(i text)) You cannot screw it up, the tree is exactly represented by the opening tags, why do you need closing tags, just have a closing symbol. :) On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Bhushan Inamdar <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes C++ poses a problem for intellisense in that area. I am not sure about > Visual Assist. But MS people have stopped providing intellisense's > autocompletion feature owing to this. The reason it says that C++ engine > does a lot of other initializations behind the scenes, to deal with your > template. As a result, with whatever little support for reflection C++ has, > it has to gather a type information for a number of such instances in the > inheritance hierarchy. This was the reason I got from MS MVPs on forums. I > am not sure about Visual Assist and this is just my opinion. But even if > Visual Assist provides come sort of intellisense for templates in C++, it is > a good job they have done. As stated, I find just rebuilding VA's cache after any major system header change helps a *lot*. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Bhushan Inamdar <[email protected]> wrote: > XML and SExp are both different paradigms although they achieve same > purpose. While OvermindDL1 finds XML unnecessarily verbose, there is another > group that would like it. I personally would prefer shorter syntaxes as he > does. But let us consider, VB.NET. It does exactly what C# does but with a > lot more verbosity. If uses "End If" to end If block and other End words for > other control structures, '_' for continuation of code on next line, End For > for For loop, etc. instead of braces in C# and C++. Also member variable, > Sub, Function, Event declarations are verbose in VB.NET. Similar seems to be > the difference of verbiousness in between the 2 languages i.e., XML and > SExp. So while C# (or C++) programmers would hate End blocks, VB.NET > programmers would like the verbosity and revealing nature. They like it because it is easy, but for people who do real work and need efficiency, that does nothing but harm our goals. And yes, I know what a loaded sentence that was, ignore that part. ^.^ > Coming back to other topics. ODBC is the same case as with MFC. MS did not > do anything to improve ODBC API at all. JDBC started as a Java parallel to > ODBC and has continued to stay in competence with ADO.NET. DAO, Hibernate, > etc. are being immitated by MS with their own inclusions. And yes one might > say that ideas no longer emerge at MS. They are only harnessing the raw > talent out there and putting together the bits. Sometimes they succeed else > try to release newer versions of the same technology till it looks nothing > like its first version. Anywayz, that apart, I am very curious to see what > does wt::Dbo have to offer. Yeah, ODBC came out with MFC, same issues with both. Microsoft does do well at *refining* ideas, like they took a lot of things Linux came up with, but refined it in a much better way, but yeah, they do not invent anything new anymore, not even decent API's... Yeah, I read that blog post, Wt.Dbo looks fascinating. I'd might recommend one change in syntax for speed reasons, but it is so minor that it is not to worry about. I like it. :) On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Bhushan Inamdar <[email protected]> wrote: > MS works under a single environment, yet it does not improve upon the > existing technologies. Every month they come up with a new technology with a > purpose that is not immediately fulfilled by it. So very true. They have had *SO*MANY* techs come out, and most of those fail because there is no reason, or no support, or a combination... On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Bhushan Inamdar <[email protected]> wrote: > But I am going to stop talking about MS here now, unless there is any > reference to it, as it is a never ending talk. What I like about MS is their > documentation which is better and is looking to improve. Quite true as well, back to better subjects, like the awesome Wt. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
