What do you use to build the CAPSImg.dll?

TeaRex · Post by **TeaRex** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:56 pm

I'm just looking through the library code you SPS guys released, wondering what version of Visual C++ do you use to compile the released CAPSImg.dll? Do you need anything special besides to compile it?

Post by **mr.vince** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:10 pm

Try Visual Studio 2006... But IFW can clarify for sure...

KrystalRe · Post by **KrystalRe** » Wed May 30, 2012 1:59 pm

mr.vince wrote:But IFW can clarify for sure...

I'm sorry but what if IFW? (I'm just starting

)

Post by **mr.vince** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:54 pm

IFW is the author...

TeaRex · Post by **TeaRex** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:30 pm

mr.vince wrote:IFW is the author...

The Code seems to build well with Visual C++ 6.0, the old late-1990s version before Microsoft went .NET all over the place; I 'm not sure there is any such thing as "Visual Studio 2006", AFAIK the version after 2005 was 2008. Of course 6.0 is an old compiler without much optimization, but the DLL isn't very performance-critical anyway. And VC++ 6.0 at least has the advantage of running and compiling very fast, even on small, netbook-class modern systems. Installing it on Vista or later takes some trickery, but it is quite possible.

Post by **mr.vince** » Wed May 30, 2012 5:05 pm

I think the main reason was to make a file that would work on whatever flavour of Windows without the need to install any .NET stuff. Although I appreciate what .NET has to offer, it really leads to bloated code. If there is another advantage here, I assume IFW will chime in.

TeaRex · Post by **TeaRex** » Wed May 30, 2012 6:31 pm

mr.vince wrote:I think the main reason was to make a file that would work on whatever flavour of Windows without the need to install any .NET stuff. Although I appreciate what .NET has to offer, it really leads to bloated code. If there is another advantage here, I assume IFW will chime in.

Yes, VC++ 6.0 has the great advantage that it can produce code that runs on anything from at least NT4 and W98 onward. All the more modern Microsoft C++ compilers still allow you to build native code that needs no .NET (Microsoft has slowly retreated from the all-.NET strategy anyways) but they don't support older Windows versions as targets - as I heard, the newest version now in beta will even drop support for XP targets which is clearly a problem when you don't want to exclude a pretty large chunk of users.

Also while the newer compiler suites don't target .NET exclusively, they do need .NET to run their own IDEs, which are pretty bad memory hogs and quite slow on all but the fastest CPUs.

Jeff_HxC2001 · Post by **Jeff_HxC2001** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:00 pm

I use VS6 too for compatibility reasons with W95/W98/W2000 machines (which is important in my case...). For example Microsoft removed the Windows 2000 support in VS 2008 (and this not only a .NET problem...) ...

Post by **IFW** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:25 am

Pretty much what everyone said here, it's VC/VS6:
1, The IDE is really fast on my laptop
2, The generated code runs on any windows version
3, If I want performance I just switch to Intel/ICC - but the code itself is highly optimized for all critical paths, e.g. writing the stream data

KryoFlux^® Support Forums