Are there complete windows headers and if yes where can i find them and will they work for 64bit?

On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 at 09:04:32 UTC, frustrated2 wrote:
> Are there complete windows headers and if yes where can i find them and will they work for 64bit?

there is mostly complete headers[1], however it is not and never be ready for x64.

also there is Andrej Mitrovic's fork[2] of these, which you can make work with x64 with few(at moment of 2.063 due to bugs) to none manual fixes.


[1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/wiki/WindowsApi
[2] https://github.com/AndrejMitrovic/DWinProgramming/tree/master/WindowsAPI

thanks for your reply. its a shame that the language does not supply ready to use headers. i can live with missing libraries, but not with incomplete or non working bare minimal prerequisites to use it with an os.
that is a sad and sorry state!

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 05:30:29 UTC, evilrat wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 at 09:04:32 UTC, frustrated2 wrote:
>> Are there complete windows headers and if yes where can i find them and will they work for 64bit?
>
> there is mostly complete headers[1], however it is not and never be ready for x64.
>
> also there is Andrej Mitrovic's fork[2] of these, which you can make work with x64 with few(at moment of 2.063 due to bugs) to none manual fixes.
>
>
> [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/wiki/WindowsApi
> [2] https://github.com/AndrejMitrovic/DWinProgramming/tree/master/WindowsAPI

On 12/12/2013 4:44 PM, frustrated2 wrote:
> thanks for your reply. its a shame that the language does not supply
> ready to use headers. i can live with missing libraries, but not with
> incomplete or non working bare minimal prerequisites to use it with an os.
> that is a sad and sorry state!

I don't see why. Win32 bindings aren't shipped with Java or Python and several other languages. Even C and C++, except for maybe one of the MinGW distros. Even with VC, you still have to download the Windows SDK separately. Should DMD ship with X-Windows bindings, too? What about Cocoa on OS X?

I would be content if DMD did not ship Win32 bindings at all, except for the minimal needed to implement cross-platform stuff in Phobos. As it stands, the static libs for the Win32 API that ship with DMD are old and don't include a good number of modern functions anyway. IMO, complete OS API bindings *should* be separate. I wouldn't expect them with the compiler.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Mike Parker:

> I would be content if DMD did not ship Win32 bindings at all, except for the minimal needed to implement cross-platform stuff in Phobos. As it stands, the static libs for the Win32 API that ship with DMD are old and don't include a good number of modern functions anyway. IMO, complete OS API bindings *should* be separate. I wouldn't expect them with the compiler.

I prefer languages with more "batteries included".

Bye,
bearophile

On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 at 09:04:32 UTC, frustrated2 wrote:
> Are there complete windows headers and if yes where can i find them and will they work for 64bit?

I've also generated from Mingw64 windows static binding[1]. So it
definitely will work with Windows 7 64bit. However I've only
tested some of the GDI parts for DOOGLE. So its kinda don't count
on it.

[1]
https://github.com/rikkimax/DOOGLE/tree/master/source/WindowsAPI

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:18:51 -0000, Mike Parker <aldacron@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/2013 4:44 PM, frustrated2 wrote:
>> thanks for your reply. its a shame that the language does not supply
>> ready to use headers. i can live with missing libraries, but not with
>> incomplete or non working bare minimal prerequisites to use it with an os.
>> that is a sad and sorry state!
>
> I don't see why. Win32 bindings aren't shipped with Java or Python and several other languages. Even C and C++, except for maybe one of the MinGW distros. Even with VC, you still have to download the Windows SDK separately.

I don't believe this last statement is true.  I am fairly certain that upon installing VC you have everything you need to call/use Win32 functions.  The only reason to download/install a separate SDK is if your VC version is older and you want a newer SDK/API.

> Should DMD ship with X-Windows bindings, too? What about Cocoa on OS X?

How big are they?  If we're just talking about D "header" files then I am all for it, the more the merrier.  It's not like internet bandwidth or hard disk space is currently an issue and it will only become less of an issue the more time rolls on.  If people are really anxious about this, why not have a separate download for windows and the various flavours of UNIX.. wait a minute, we already do. :)

> I would be content if DMD did not ship Win32 bindings at all, except for the minimal needed to implement cross-platform stuff in Phobos.

This is more or less the current situation right?  Last time I tried to do any Win32 stuff in D there were enormous gaps.. this is one reason I don't have any current projects using D.

> As it stands, the static libs for the Win32 API that ship with DMD are old and don't include a good number of modern functions anyway. IMO, complete OS API bindings *should* be separate. I wouldn't expect them with the compiler.

Sure, if we're talking about DLL/LIB files then I agree, we don't want to be shipping these with the compiler.  They should be obtained from official channels i.e. downloading the windows SDK.

However..

Does DMD support the M$ dll/lib format or is that still an issue?  I know there is a conversion tool, but IIRC you have to pay for that..  this hassle was another reason I stopped using D for my personal projects.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

I prefer languages with more "batteries included" - for sure. its a nice compiler, love the language, but i do not want to waste the time to do everything myself. even basic compilers (yuck) offer more tools, windows programming and db stuff than D.


On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 09:49:31 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Mike Parker:
>
>> I would be content if DMD did not ship Win32 bindings at all, except for the minimal needed to implement cross-platform stuff in Phobos. As it stands, the static libs for the Win32 API that ship with DMD are old and don't include a good number of modern functions anyway. IMO, complete OS API bindings *should* be separate. I wouldn't expect them with the compiler.
>
> I prefer languages with more "batteries included".
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 11:08:41 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> Does DMD support the M$ dll/lib format or is that still an issue?  I know there is a conversion tool, but IIRC you have to pay for that..  this hassle was another reason I stopped using D for my personal projects.

with -m64 DMD using MS toolchain, but x86 uses optlink and probably never support COFF libs.

what payment do you talking about? i mean there is two tools - coffimplib(you can get it from digital mars ftp) and something like implib(i don't remember its name correctly), both are free afaik.

On 12/12/2013 8:20 PM, frustrated2 wrote:
> I prefer languages with more "batteries included" - for sure. its a nice
> compiler, love the language, but i do not want to waste the time to do
> everything myself. even basic compilers (yuck) offer more tools, windows
> programming and db stuff than D.

I appreciate that some people prefer the "batteries included" approach. I was basically responding to your remark that it's a "sad and sorry state." I felt that was a bit extreme, given that more complete Windows API bindings do exist.