Re: [Fractdev] Fractint and Win XP
Hi Guys, Are we ready to port FRACTINT to Windows yet? All I need is some help to write header files so that I can compile the substantial Fractint code with MS visual C++ v4.0. The basic windows code already works with MANPWin. Comments please. Thanks, Paul. ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul de Leeuw Computers Central Coast Australia Email: pdeleeuw@deleeuw.com.au www: <http://www.deleeuw.com.au> ABN 72 360 822 562 ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Osuch <osuchj@avalon.net> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2002 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Fractdev] Fractint and Win XP
On Monday 01 April 2002 07:58 pm, Tim wrote:
Agreed. I can pull out the Targa stuff from all the versions together. That will make life simpler. Then if we abandon the integer> version, there will basically be one set of sources since Xfractint> and fractint share common code unchanged.
Close. There is still the experimental code, which will make porting easier.
Make sure you are only pulling out the code for the Targa video board. I seem to recall some truecolor code for creating tga files.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________ Fractdev mailing list Fractdev@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractdev
Paul asked:
Are we ready to port FRACTINT to Windows yet? All I need is some help to write header files so that I can compile the substantial Fractint code with MS visual C++ v4.0. The basic windows code already works with MANPWin.
I am a little unclear what you are proposing. How is this proposed Windows port different from manpwin? Is this a more inclusive literal port like Winfract, which was nearly full featured? Tim
On Monday 01 April 2002 09:22 pm, Paul wrote:
Are we ready to port FRACTINT to Windows yet? All I need is some help to write header files so that I can compile the substantial Fractint code with MS visual C++ v4.0. The basic windows code already works with MANPWin.
No, is the easy answer. What do you need to do to the header files? Personally, I won't be using a MS product to port Xfractint to Windows. Subject to change under the right conditions, but for now I'd rather use djgpp compilers/assemblers. Jonathan
Jonathan wrote:
Personally, I won't be using a MS product to port Xfractint to Windows. Subject to change under the right conditions, but for now I'd rather use djgpp compilers/assemblers.
I share your prejudices <grin!> but I'm not so sure that your goals and Paul's are so different. Code not linked to the user interface should work with either compiler. FWIW, Paul's approach in manpwin is to program to the Win32 interface, so the code should compile with other compilers. I'm not sure what he is proposing now, though. I'm sure he'll tell us. I am curious to see what Paul has in mind. I'm personally not interested in targetting only Windows, but if we could actually get to where various versions share code (like Xfractint and Fractint did, and to a much lesser extent Winfract and Fractint did) then the work on various platforms could support each other. I don't think that is a far fetched goal. I have an old Microsoft Visual C/C++ compiler (version 4.0 or 5.0) so I could follow along. But I'm not personally interested in learning Windows programming. Tim
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 08:05 pm, Tim wrote:
I share your prejudices <grin!> but I'm not so sure that your goals and Paul's are so different. Code not linked to the user interface should work with either compiler.
And the experimental code is pretty much at the point where it will allow different interfaces. It's just not quite ready for prime time. And, I keep getting side tracked. 8-)) Jonathan
pdeleeuw wrote:
All I need is some help to write header files so that I can compile the substantial Fractint code with MS visual C++ v4.0.
I can understand your wanting to use a compiler for the operating system most widely used around the world. Though you do know that it kind of goes against the main "theme" of the program: developing and using FREEWARE product/s. I no longer have access to the older 4.0 and 5.0 versions, but if you need some assistance, then I might have occasional time with MS-VC++ 6.0 Pro, which I currently use. Setting up the Hearder files should not be too involved. Sincerely, P.N.L. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.fractalus.com/cgi-bin/theway?ring=fractals&id=43&go
Paul Lee wrote:
I can understand your wanting to use a compiler for the operating system most widely used around the world. Though you do know that it kind of goes against the main "theme" of the program: developing and using FREEWARE product/s.
Actually, Bert Tyler was always a big fan of Microsoft, and Microsoft compilers were always the "official" ones for Fractint. Fractint has always been a freeware open source program developed with a proprietary compiler. Xfractint was the first exception to that. But as I said, I share Jonathan's prejudices. :-) But I don't object to Paul's project. Tim
Tim Wegner wrote:
...Microsoft compilers were always the "official" ones for Fractint.
Interesting history, I did not know that. Since you have used the past tense, I am now curious as to when the C compiler for FractInt stop being a Microsoft one??
Fractint has always been a freeware open source program developed with a proprietary compiler.
What is the current product used for compilation??
But I don't object to Paul's project.
Nor do I object to any platform and/or compiler. :-) The main processors and servers at most of the businesses I have worked with over the past four years use UNIX, with Windows 9x and NT on the desktops. Each has it's place. Later, P.N.L. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.fractalus.com/cgi-bin/theway?ring=fractals&id=43&go
Paul asked:
What is the current product used for compilation??
Microsoft C/C++ 7.0, not to be confused with Visual C/C++ 7.0. The one we are using is the LAST Microsoft compiler that supports medium memory model programming. Jonathan and I both still have this compiler. When George Martin was active, we also used Borland. I believe that there is a freely-downloadable Watcom that supports the medium memory model. I don't know if the current freely downloadable Borland still supports the medium model. I'll be glad when we are off of the medium model. Tim
On the subject of compilers, I like VC++6 and am looking forward to the switch to VC7 for its improved compiler support. Having said that, I don't think one should write code that isn't portable across compilers. Writing to the Win32 API and not using MFC would be a way to do that in the near-term as far as GUI needs go. In the longer term, the code should really be split into a platform agnostic "engine" and a platform-specific GUI chunk. Then you can use the full GUI-ness of the platform to your advantage, which could mean MFC/WTL/ATL on Win32 or Mac Toolbox on the Macintosh, Motif on X11, etc. -- Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley! Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> izfree: Open source tools for Windows Installer <http://izfree.sourceforge.net>
participants (5)
-
Jonathan Osuch -
Paul N. Lee -
pdeleeuw -
Rich -
Tim Wegner