ringi wrote:What about maloc/free and new/delete has the same been done for them?
PS why don't they just call the win32 heat API rather the implementing there own heep?
As far as I am aware these are implemented using the Windows API. I'm curious, though, as to how one would implement a heap without using OS provided functionality?
If you are aware of a specific implementation of new/delete that implements it's own heap I would like to take a look at it
Most implementation of new/delete malloc/free ask the OS for LARGE blocks of ram, (e.g. 32K at a time) then split it up into the small chunks that are given out. I know the Microsoft C++ runtime used to do with, as I have in the past had to look it's code
in the debugger after a buffer overrun in the software I was working on. (On most OSs asking for memory is VERY expensive so a c/c++ program would be match too slow if the runtime pass the request onto the OS each time.)
As I work in C# these days I have not had to look at the Microsoft C++ runtime libs for a few years so don’t know if they now just call into the speed up OS heap functions.
This was not my understanding after watching the video, but as it is some time since I watch the video I may be wrong. My employer is in the process of becoming a Microsoft Partner, I have been pushing them to do so mostly to give me access to Team System.
I live and work in the UK, the problem about saying "no one pays retail" is that a lot of the discounts are only for USA based developers. The discounts that are valid in the UK are very hard to find, just try finding out the prices of ISV advantage in the
UK, they are not on the main English Microsoft web site. Unlike a developer from a none English speaking county, I normally only every use the Microsoft.com web size. (USA only content should be on “Microsoft.co.usa”)
I work in a small company (ISV); we have just moved to subversion (from CVS) for source code control and use an open source bug tracking system that we are not too unhappy with. We use CrouseControl.Net for automatic builds. Therefore it is the "desktop"
tools that are of most interest to us. I think every developer should get basic testing tools.
a) A cut down web load testing tools, I don’t mind if it is limited to a few "virtual users", provided that the tool is very easy to use. I do not want to have to code “view state” into my test scripts. (50 "virtual users" is more then enough for a normal
b) A UI testing tools that works!. I do not mind having the test management framework in the "tester" version of MSDEV, provided a developer can records and playback a single UI test script. (I need to be able to replay a test script that the test team
has recorded to demonstrate a bug.)
c) I do not care about unit testing, nUnit and TestDriven.Net is good enough! We are using it at present and it does the job. (However it would be good if all Microsoft based developers in the world know how to use the same unit testing framework, so as
to cut down the cost of retaining as people move between jobs.) I hope that you have confirmed that TestDriven.Net works with MSDEV V2, as part of your testing!
The high level design tools are not of match interest, as it takes a long time to learn such tools and the fact that they are designed for in house development means they are not of match use to an ISV. Give the small size of our teams; if the system high
level design is to complex to fit on a white board, then it is too complex for us to ship in a reasonable time frame. The class designer tools is great! I am very happy that it is included on all versions of MSDEV.
What I think I after for is a developer + small scaling testing package.
The fact that I could not even order a MSDEV beta 2 DVD in the UK at the same time as it started shipping in the US give me the message the Microsoft does not value me as I am a UK a based developer.
You can now order the DVD in the uk from www.microsoft.com/betaexperience
If you live outside of the USA, you need to use "https://www.microsoft.com/betaexperience" to get your Beta DVD. However for some reason the web site will not allow you to order the DVD if your job title
is "developer" you have to provide a "magic" set of answers for it to consider you "worthy" of getting the DVD.
Please make 2.1 a “learning free” release, like 1.1 was. Version 1.1 was good as it sorted out a lot of miner problems that most developers had not yet pushed 1.0 hard enough to hit. In 2.1 I would like to see a lot of the “little” requests on lady bug
being done, making every bit of the product a bit better.
Then given as a version 3.0 2 or 3 years later that solve some big problems, by that time most developer will have got up to speed on version 2.x
I do not see the new Longhorn bits of interest to most developers for a long time, as Windows 2000 is still very common and will not run application that take advantage of it. Therefore please spend as much time making .NET/MSDEV better for WinForms and Asp.Net
developers as you spend on the “Longhorn Wave”. Most of us already have .NET code and can’t just change the code overnight to do things in a different way.
Data access is a big problem today. Just to send a dataset to a database when it contains changes to more then one table, mean writing update code by hand that calls the data adaptor for each table in the correct order. Making C# 3.0 as good as a 4GL for
data base work would be of great benefit. I am looking forward to when C# integrates into a database as well as PLSQL does.
I am most looking forward to generic types in C# 2.0, as I will be able to use them from day one for new code without having to convert my application to a new style. C# 2.0 gives me back everything that I had to give up (and wanted to keep) when I moved from