 | | | Kicking the programming in TrueSpace can around | Kicking the programming in TrueSpace can around 2005-06-02 - By DAVID STUBBS
Back
hi KM
Thanks K for your response:
K wrote: I can't comment on the rest because it is gobbldyguk to me.
D wrote :Now you know what programmers must go through to get the
right balance with an application. hundreds and hundreds of pages
of code all interacting with each other at some time in some way
and each different. Hence the Class/Objects and now .Net
XP is like a rope "unknotted" - how about that
XP is a step in the right direction. It ain't console perfect but it is pretty
close
and one day it could be console perfect to your specifications. Of this i am
sure.
In many ways TrueSpace is accomadating to this requirement.
Well, you are right about some things in what you say. However, XPpro is very
stable.
but at the price of hardware. In the old days code would be taken down to binary
through assembly but that is too much work these days. Hence hardware as we see
it today,
Yes, Icons could probably represent a specific user requirement without
manually drilling through each step to get at the (*.txt) file. I usually put
notepad on my startmenu or desktop and open it as required.
Remember 3.1 or 3.11? The directory structure is not much different.
Anyway, what I was trying to get at while making conversation was this:
Is the messaging system of the OS provisional to .Net wherein .Net
provides all the execution and the application gets the results. Or does
.Net from the appliciation talk directly to the hardware through the OS
messaging (functions only) or (O.S.net class/function)system. See where
this is heading - Hardware upgrades - prepare for it. does hardware talk
the same with .Net? = hardware changes = upgrades.
If it is thought about it makes a difference in terms of memory load
and cpu processing time for the application as well.
David
KMKrieger <pterochromics@(protected)> wrote:
At 11:28 PM 31-05-05, DAVID STUBBS wrote:
>This topic has programming TrueSpace focus.
>
>The Win 32 system in XP is a significant factor in terms of processing
>speed and ram memory with 32 bit programming and a .net programming language.
Are those of W2KPro the same? IOW are we slaved to XP or does W2KPro offer
annlaternative?
I've used XP and it drove me to re-word the old joke. To whit:
Q.: "How many icons-clicks does it take for XP to open a 2-line *.TXT file?"
A.: "100 - 99 to wind through the Gorgon-like User INterface and one to
actually open the file."
>To understand the significance of the different programming languages
>provides a rationale of system requirements when writing code for XP and
>TrueSpace.
So then, what your saying is that tS7 is slaved to XP specifically, solely,
and *exclusively* =>:-p ?
I can't comment on the rest because it is gobbldyguk to me.
- K.
>Also, in terms of just what the Win 32 system is doing within each
>programming technique applied to coding and runtime code results. in
>terms of a system demands. or for that matter a .Net 32 bit OS .
>
>Here are a few scenerios I can think of:
>
>Low memory demands if 32 bit and procedural code such as c or c++
>functions are the main messaging.
>
>higher memory demands
>32 bit and class coding in 32 bit such as c++ , vb etc.
>class instances carry overhead when instantiated to use a function in the OS.
>
>
>still higher memory demands
>A .Net XP and a .Net programming language.
>
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>David
>
>
>__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
>E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.
>
>To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account
>Manager.
>****************************************************************************
>********
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
****************************************************************************
********
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.
To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account
Manager.
****************************************************************************
********
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
****************************************************************************
********
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless
E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.
To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account
Manager.
****************************************************************************
********
<DIV>hi KM</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks K for your response:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>K wrote: I can't comment on the rest because it is gobbldyguk to me. </DIV>
<DIV>D wrote :Now you know what programmers must go through to get the</DIV>
<DIV>
right balance with an application. hundreds and hundreds of pages</DIV>
<DIV>
of code all interacting with each other at some time in some way</DIV>
<DIV>
and each different. Hence the Class/Objects and now .Net </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>XP is like a rope "unknotted" - how about that</DIV>
<DIV>XP is a step in the right direction. It ain't console perfect but it is
pretty close</DIV>
<DIV>and one day it could be console perfect to your specifications. Of this i
am sure.</DIV>
<DIV>In many ways TrueSpace is accomadating to this requirement. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, you are right about some things in what you say. However, XPpro is
very stable.</DIV>
<DIV>but at the price of hardware. In the old days code would be taken down to
binary</DIV>
<DIV>through assembly but that is too much work these days. Hence hardware as
we see</DIV>
<DIV>it today, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, Icons could probably represent a specific user requirement without<
/DIV>
<DIV>manually drilling through each step to get at the (*.txt) file. I
usually put</DIV>
<DIV>notepad on my startmenu or desktop and open it as required.</DIV>
<DIV>Remember 3.1 or 3.11? The directory structure is not much different.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anyway, what I was trying to get at while making conversation was this:<
/DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is the messaging system of the OS provisional to .Net wherein
.Net</DIV>
<DIV>provides all the execution and the application gets the results. Or does<
/DIV>
<DIV>.Net from the appliciation talk directly to the hardware through the OS<
/DIV>
<DIV>messaging (functions only) or (O.S.net class/function)system. See where<
/DIV>
<DIV>this is heading - Hardware upgrades - prepare for it. does hardware talk<
/DIV>
<DIV>the same with .Net? = hardware changes = upgrades.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If it is thought about it makes a difference in terms of memory load</DIV>
<DIV>and cpu processing time for the application as well.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>David</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>KMKrieger <pterochromics@(protected)></I></B> wrote:
</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER
-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">At 11:28 PM 31-05-05, DAVID STUBBS wrote:<BR>>This
topic has programming TrueSpace focus.<BR>><BR>>The Win 32 system in XP
is a significant factor in terms of processing<BR>>speed and ram memory with
32 bit programming and a .net programming language.<BR><BR>Are those of W2KPro
the same? IOW are we slaved to XP or does W2KPro offer<BR>annlaternative?<BR>
<BR>I've used XP and it drove me to re-word the old joke. To whit:<BR><BR>Q.:
"How many icons-clicks does it take for XP to open a 2-line *.TXT file?"<BR>A.:
"100 - 99 to wind through the Gorgon-like User INterface and one to<BR>actually
open the file."<BR><BR>>To understand the significance of the different
programming languages<BR>>provides a rationale of system requirements when
writing code for XP and<BR>>TrueSpace.<BR><BR>So then, what your saying is
that tS7 is slaved to XP specifically, solely,<BR>and
*exclusively* =>:-p ?<BR><BR>I can't comment on the rest because it is
gobbldyguk to me.<BR><BR>- K.<BR><BR>>Also, in terms of just what the Win 32
system is doing within each<BR>>programming technique applied to coding and
runtime code results. in<BR>>terms of a system demands. or for that matter a
.Net 32 bit OS .<BR>><BR>>Here are a few scenerios I can think of:<BR>>
;<BR>>Low memory demands if 32 bit and procedural code such as c or c++<BR>
>functions are the main messaging.<BR>><BR>>higher memory demands<BR>
>32 bit and class coding in 32 bit such as c++ , vb etc.<BR>>class
instances carry overhead when instantiated to use a function in the OS.<BR>>
<BR>><BR>>still higher memory demands<BR>>A .Net XP and a .Net
programming
language.<BR>><BR>><BR>>Thanks.<BR>><BR>><BR>>David<BR>>
<BR>><BR>>__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______
__ __<BR>>*******************************************************************
*********<BR>>********<BR>>This message has been checked for all known
viruses by the Cable & Wireless<BR>>E-mail Virus Protection service,
powered by MessageLabs.<BR>><BR>>To purchase this service, please contact
your Cable & Wireless Account<BR>>Manager.<BR>>**********************
******************************************************<BR>>********<BR><BR>
<BR>__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______<BR>***
*************************************************************************<BR>***
*****<BR>This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable &
Wireless<BR>E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.<BR><BR>To
purchase this service, please contact your Cable
& Wireless Account<BR>Manager.<BR>****************************************
************************************<BR>********<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ______<BR>
****************************************************************************<BR>
********<BR>
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Cable & Wireless<BR>
E-mail Virus Protection service, powered by MessageLabs.<BR>
<BR>
To purchase this service, please contact your Cable & Wireless Account<BR>
Manager.<BR>
****************************************************************************<BR>
********<BR>
|
|
|