I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:

warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and for those that don't have a version taking a size_t, a new method ending in _s (fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t for the size of the string.

This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.

But what a great decision to get rid of zero-terminated strings in D, and make it an array which knows it's size!

I sooo want to program in D, but I can't really get even a simple project finished (I'm converting FART to D, http://fart-it.sf.net/ )

I'd say the whole CRT/libc stuff should be deprecated in D. Phobos should be a library using only D. If you're porting a C/C++ project, you'll link to some crt.d files, but I believe they should not be a part of Phobos. Lets get rid of those zero-terminated strings once and for all.

Lionello.

In article <d2r9ei$1rgo$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lionello Lunesu says...
>
>I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:
>
>warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated
>
>In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and for those that don't have a version taking a size_t, a new method ending in _s (fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t for the size of the string.

Great, now I'll have another warning to add to my ignore list.  I think the VC++ team tends to be one of the best at that company, but how they can deprecate functions required by the standard is beyond me.

>This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.

Indeed.  But is it really necessary to do this just because the folks at Microsoft can't write secure code?

>But what a great decision to get rid of zero-terminated strings in D, and make it an array which knows it's size!

Indeed.  D does a lot of things that make sense in retrospect.

>I sooo want to program in D, but I can't really get even a simple project finished (I'm converting FART to D, http://fart-it.sf.net/ )

What's wrong?


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:

>>I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:
>>
>>warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

> Great, now I'll have another warning to add to my ignore list.  I think the VC++
> team tends to be one of the best at that company, but how they can deprecate
> functions required by the standard is beyond me.

LOL, "they are the best at that company, and they still suck"

If I were to spend like $800, I would probably get CodeWarrior.
But then again, I probably am not - and just use GCC instead...

--anders

"Lionello Lunesu" <lio@lunesu.removethis.com> wrote in message news:d2r9ei$1rgo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:
>
> warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated
>
> In fact, all methods taking a zero-terminated string are deprecated and for those that don't have a version taking a size_t, a new method ending in _s (fopen_s) was added, taking an extra size_t for the size of the string.
>
> This was done to cut back on buffer-overflow hacks, obvisously.

Hmmm. Since such functions are standard, how can they be deprecated? A very perverse take on reality.

Also, UNIX/Mac systems are written in standard C and, though they do have/have had security issues with overflows, they're hardly in the Windows league. Maybe it's not just the standard library functions???

> But what a great decision to get rid of zero-terminated strings in D, and make it an array which knows it's size!

Agreed. I think slices are the best part of D (and, when I'm in one of those Doldrums, the only feature that keeps me tagging along).

> I'd say the whole CRT/libc stuff should be deprecated in D. Phobos should be a library using only D. If you're porting a C/C++ project, you'll link to some crt.d files, but I believe they should not be a part of Phobos. Lets get rid of those zero-terminated strings once and for all.

That's an interesting take. Clean delineation of abstraction levels is a good thing, but not always a popular one.

> If I were to spend like $800, I would probably get CodeWarrior. But then again, I probably am not - and just use GCC instead...


Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free, and is a *very* good compiler, in my personal best 3 (along with Intel and CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).

Visual Studio .NET is not free, is a gargantuan resource consumer (1-2GB install, 50MB+ running), is incredibly slow, takes 10 minutes to load on a 2GHz+512MB machine, and, worst of all, makes you use the mouse for almost everything.

So, I'd suggest you *do* use VC++, but that you *do not* buy any of the Visual Studio stuff.

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> I've just installed .NET 2005 februari preview release and tried to compile my current projects (made using VC6), and got thousands of these:
> 
> warning C4996: 'fopen' was declared deprecated

Hm. I assume that the WinAPI comes with evil functions to open files by UTF-16 names, and that fopen cannot take UTF-16 strings and thus not open all files, so it is quite inaquedate for Windows.

What am I missing?

--Benjamin

Lemon Sented wrote:

> Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free,
> and is a *very* good compiler, in my personal  best
> 3 (along with Intel and CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).

I'm using GCC for portability and familarity
(plus that it is Free Software / Open Source),

but I found Digital Mars C/C++ to be pretty quick...
Unfortunately not available for Mac OS X or Linux.

--anders

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:d2sboe$6tq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Lemon Sented wrote:
>
>> Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free,
>> and is a *very* good compiler, in my personal  best
>> 3 (along with Intel and CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).
>
> I'm using GCC for portability and familarity
> (plus that it is Free Software / Open Source),
>
> but I found Digital Mars C/C++ to be pretty quick... Unfortunately not available for Mac OS X or Linux.

It's very quick, but still costs more than its fair share of time
(wrt the other compilers) in workarounds for advanced
(c. 1998-2002) features.

But Walter's doing a great job catching up:
it's rate of improvement it better than the others.

"Lemon Sented" <lemons@sent.ed> wrote in message news:d2schr$7p4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> But Walter's doing a great job catching up:
> it's rate of improvement it better than the others.

Take a look at the preprocessor fixes in the new beta, making DMC++ highly compliant in the preprocessor department - even more compliant in some cases than Spirit Wave is (DMC++ will compile the 'book' examples correctly, Wave doesn't).

Lemon Sented wrote:
>>If I were to spend like $800, I would probably get CodeWarrior.
>>But then again, I probably am not - and just use GCC instead...
> 
> 
> 
> Visual C++ 7.1 cmd line tool set is free, and is a *very* good compiler, in my personal best 3 (along with Intel and CodeWarrior; GCC is a close 4th).
> 
> Visual Studio .NET is not free, is a gargantuan resource consumer (1-2GB install, 50MB+ running), is incredibly slow, takes 10 minutes to load on a 2GHz+512MB machine, and, worst of all, makes you use the mouse for almost everything.
> 
> So, I'd suggest you *do* use VC++, but that you *do not* buy any of the Visual Studio stuff.
> 
> 
> 

Maybe you should try DMC++.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

JP2, you'll always live in our minds