I am familiar with QT/gtk+ libs under linux. I've just roughly had a look at available c++ frameworks like Reason and Platinum. Does anyone have any experience working with any of them? Are they any good, should I consider learning them? I am not a big fan of frameworks though.
Keep using Qt or gtk+.
They're very good, and you already know them.
I am not a fan of frameworks either, which is maybe why I haven't heard of those you mention. Having said that, check out POCO. Looks much better than Qt or gtk+ to me if you don't need GUI.
I worked on a project that had to run on multiple platforms (Linux, Windows, Windows CE). We used WxWidgets for the UI. The libraries and the tools weren't perfect. But it compiled and ran on all the platforms without any issues.
The platform is completely open source, so you have the benefits therein.
In the end, I was glad we used it as apposed to porting the UI layer multiple times.
boost asio: the framework for those who are not framework fans ;-). (and this question still lacked a boost answer)
I've started working a little bit with Platinum C++. The documentation is really lacking. That said, you can get some things off the ground relatively quickly. What I worry about is investing deeper into it and finding bugs without support or that it gets dropped as a project (or never really adopted) -- it is version 1.0.0.4
I sounds like you are practiced in keeping the general application mechanics independent and abstracted from one another. It may be worth writing your own small 'framework' and plugging in functionality from other projects with a small wrapper - particularly boost, as mentioned above. This is the direction I am going.
What are the best practices on writing a cross platform library in C++?
My development environment is Eclipse CDT on Linux, but my library should have the possibility to compile natively on Windows either (from Visual C++ for example).
Thanks.
To some extent, this is going to depend on exactly what your library is meant to accomplish.
If you were developing a GUI application, for instance, you would want to focus on using a well-tested cross-platform framework such as wxWidgets.
If your library depends primarily on File IO, you would want to make sure you use an existing well-tested cross-platform filesystem abstraction library such as Boost Filesystem.
If your library is none of the above (i.e. there are no existing well-tested cross-platform frameworks for you to use), your best bet is to make sure you adhere to standard C++ as much as possible (this means don't #include <linux.h> or <windows.h>, for instance). When that isn't possible (i.e. your library reads raw sound data from a microphone), you'll want to make sure the implementation details for a given platform are sufficiently abstracted away so that you minimize the work involved in porting your library to another platform.
To my knowledge, there are a few things you can do:
You can divide the platform specific code into different namespaces.
You can use the PIMPL idiom to hide platform specific code.
You can use macros do know what code to compile (in this case the code will be platform specific). Check this link for more information.
Test your library in multiple environments.
Depending on what you are doing it might be good to use libraries such as Boost because it is not specific to a platform. The downside (or possibly the good side) is that you will force the use of the libraries you included.
Couple of suggestions from my practical experience:
1) Make sure of regular compilation of sources in your targeted platforms. Don't wait till the end. This'd help point to errors early. Use a continuous build system -- it makes life a lot easier.
2) Never use platform specific headers. Not even for writing native code -- for all you know some stuff in a windows header might expect some string which was ABC in XP but got changed to ABC.12 in Win7.
3) Use ideas from STL and BOOST and then build on top of them. Never consider these to be a panacea for problems though -- STL is easy to ship with your code but BOOST is not.
4) Do not use compiler specific constructs like __STDCALL. This is asking for hell.
5) The same code when compiled with similar compiler options in g++ and cl might result in different behavior. Please have a copy of your compiler manual very handy.
Anytime I work on something like this I try and build it in the different environments that I want to be supported. Similarly if you were making a web page and you wanted to make sure it worked in IE, Firefox, and Chrome you'd test it in all three of those browsers. Test it in the different environments you want to support, and you'll know what systems you can safely say it works for.
question as stated is bit abstract.but you can give QT a consideration
It's really just as simple as "don't using anything platform specific". The wealth of freely available tools availalble these days makes writing cross-platform code in C++ a snap. For those rare but occasional cases where you really do need to use platform specific APIs, just be sure to separate them out via #defines or, better in my opinion, distinct .cpp files for each platform.
There are many alternatives for cross platform libraries but my personal preferences are:
GUI: Qt
OS abstraction (though Qt does a great job of this all by itself): Boost
Cross-platform Makefiles: CMake
The last one, CMake, has been a tremendous help for me over the last few years for keeping my build environment sane while doing dual-development on Windows & Linux. It has a rather steep learning curve but once it's up and running, it works exceptionally well.
You mean besides continuous integration and testing on target platforms? Or besides using design to abstract away the implementation details?
No, can't think of anything.
STL/Boost cover all the low level stuff.
But what about the higher level concepts?
Windows: We have multiple windowing libs
KDE(Qt)
Gnome
Motif(C but written in OO style)
MS Windows
etc
But is anybody working on a unified standard for windowing?
Something that wrapped all the above would be acceptable. (even if it only accessed the common stuff it would be a starting point).
Networking:
There are a couple out there (including the Boost low level stuff).
But is there anybody working on a Service based network layer?
All the other stuff that Java/C# have in their standard libraries.
The stuff that makes it simpler for a beginner to jump in and say Wow done and it works everywhere (nearly).
Anyway. Here hoping there are some cool projects out there.
Edit
Maybe there is not one.
But if there are a couple that could be bundled together as a starting point (and potentially modified over time (where is that deprecated keyword)) into a nice consolidated whole.
Note: Windows is just a small part of what I am looking for. The Java/C# languages consolidate a lot more under the hood than just the GUI. What would be a good set of libraries to get all the functionality in one place.
There are too big differences between platforms to get a definitive C++ standard for GUI programming. I think Qt is about as close as you will get in the forseeable future. wxWidgets is another popular choise, but as I understand it, they are using less modern c++ features.
As for networking, I think you are being kind of vague. If you mean web services over HTTP, I would have a look at Pion.
Well it is almost 2010 and C++ almost has threads.
I'll probably get slammed for this but C++ moves too slow - to its own detriment and its user base. I readily acknowledge the difficulty of the technical and political issues involved but that's still the dirty reality of it. The language can't build in higher level concepts when it takes 5-10 years to agree on and implement the building blocks.
The reasons for this have endlessly debated but the sad truth is that C++ has relegated itself to a niche language. I like C++ but I look at the progress C#, Java, and even Python and Ruby have made over the last 5 years and I increasingly question whether C++ is worth the effort.
The Poco C++ project aims to deliver all that you ask, except for Windowing:
The POCO C++ Libraries aim to be for
network-centric, cross-platform C++
software development what Apple's
Cocoa is for Mac development, or Ruby
on Rails is for Web development — a
powerful, yet easy to use platform to
build your applications upon.
Qt might be the only framework complete enough to be what you suggest.
I guess there's some kind of keyword lookup driving the advertising here because I'm seeing a REALbasic ad, which is what I generally use for cross-platform GUI's nowadays.
I have spent a lot of time over the last 15 years working in C++ GUI's including retailing my own portability layer for CodeWarrior PowerPlant and working on the two Macintosh-based GUI code generators, including adding Windows generation to AppMaker. I've worked with wxWidgets, mainly wxPython. So, my opinion on difficulties in cross-platform GUI is fairly well-qualified :-)
Cross-platform GUI frameworks are hard to the point of nearly impossible without significant compromise - the issues come down to subtle matters of behavior which generally bother users at a level where some of them can't quantify but know that the application doesn't feel right. This is a lot harder to fix than just rendering native controls.
I started using REALbasic because their framework does a better job of getting the feel right than anything else I'd tried (I didn't get into Qt because of the expensive commercial license).
The reason it has taken so long for things to evolve is nothing to do with the C++ world moving slowly, it's just an intractable problem. The very best cross-platform Java apps do some stuff conditionally for OS/X and it is still screamingly obvious to an experienced user that they are not a native Mac app, although some are very usable and come pretty close to looking native - Oxygen XML editor and DeltaWalker are two of my favourites.
I don't think it is achievable to make a really comprehensive portable GUI library. Operating systems are just too different. Can you imagine a GUI library that would cover everything from iPhone to Windows 7 and wouldn't feel wierd on any of them?
A Boost gui library comes up occasionally.
The general opinion seems to be that the problems is too wide (are you targeting cellphones, FPS games or CAD workstations) and that it is too much work - Qt/wxWidgets has taken 10years.
see http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/09/94453.php for a discussion.
It would have been nice because GUI usually means cross platform and threads, so all the GUI toolkits have invented their own cross platform,filesystem and thread classes. On the other hand if a standard GUI had been introduced in C++ it would probably look like TK !
What's so great about standardization ? Sure, if novice coders want to download one SDK to build portable apps, let them download Qt (or something similar) and forever remain within it's fine walled environment. But it'd be a tragedy if the C++ world revolved around that one library and boost and POCO and wxWidgets and clutter and blitz++ and eigen and and 101 other wonderful things (yes, gtkmm and ACE even) were stifled at birth because the gatekeepers of The Standard Library didn't see fit to admit them.
Diversity is good I think (although when dealing with it, it helps to have a good package manager; I've spent hours setting up build dependencies on Windows which just needed a few seconds of apt-getting on Debian).
ACE is great for concurrent communication and networking.
For cross platform windowing, there's wxWidgets. (formerly wxWindows).
Only everybody and his brother, but hardly any of them actually get anywhere.
With all the fuss about opensource projects, how come there is still not a strong standard that enables you to make portable code (I mean in C/C++ not Java or C#)
Everyone is kind of making it's own soup.
There are even some third party libs like Apache Portable Runtime.
Yes, there is no standard but libraries like Qt and boost can make your life much easier when you do cross-platform development.
wxwidgets is a great abstraction layer on the native GUI widgets of most window managers.
I think the main reason there isn't any single library anyone agrees on is that everyone's requirements are different. When you want to wrap system libraries you'll often need to make some assumptions about what the use cases will be, unless you want to make the wrapper huge and impossible to work with. I think that might be the main reason there's no single, common cross platform runtime.
For GUI, the reason would be that each platform has its own UI conventions, you can't code one GUI that fits all, you'll simply get one that fits just one or even none at all.
There are many libraries that make cross-platform development easier on their own, but making a complete wrapper for all platforms ends up being either small and highly customized, or massive and completely ridiculous.
Carried to it's logical conclusion, a complete wrapper for all aspects of an operating system becomes an entire virtual runtime. You might as well make your own programming language.
The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is an excellent object oriented framework that provides cross-platform support for all of the low level OS functionality like threading, sockets, mutexes, etc. It runs with a crazy number of compilers and operating systems.
C and C++ as languages are standards languages. If you closely follow their rules when coding (That means not using vendor-specific extensions) you're code should be portable and you should be able to compile it with any modern compiler on any OS.
However C and C++ don't have a GUI library, like Java or C#, however there exist some free or commercial GUI libraries that will allow you to write portable GUI applications.
I think the most populars are Qt (Commercial) and wxWidgets (FOSS). According to wikipedia there is a lot more.
There is also boost, while not a GUI library boost is a really great complement to C++'s STL. In fact some of the boost libraires will be added in the next C++ standard.
If you make sure it compiles cleanly with both GCC and MS VC++, it will be little extra effort to port to somewhere else.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
C++ just sucks too much of my time by making me micro-manage my own memory, making me type far too much (hello std::vector<Thingy>::const_iterator it = lotsOfThingys.begin()), and boring me with long compile times. What's the single best alternative for serious real-time graphics programming? Garbage collection is a must (as is the ability to avoid its use when necessary), and speed must be competitive with C++. A reasonable story for accessing C libs is also a must.
(Full disclosure: I have my own answer to this, but I'm interested to see what others have found to be good alternatives to C++ for real-time graphics work.)
Edit: Thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. Given that there's really no "right" answer to this question I won't be selecting any particular answer. Besides I'd just pick the language I happen to like as a C++ alternative, which wouldn't really be fair.
What about D Programming Language?
Some links requested in the comment:
Win32 Api
Derelict (Multimedia lib)
I wouldn't discard C++. In fact, I would consider adding Boost to your C++ library, which makes the language much more usable. Your example would become:
BOOST_FOREACH( Thingy& t, lostOfThingys ) {
// do something with 't'
}
Boost has tons of tools that help make C++ a better language.
C# is a nice language that fits your requirements, and it is definitely suited for graphics, thanks to the efforts of Microsoft to provide it with great tools and libraries like Visual Studio and XNA.
Real-time + garbage collection don't match very well I'm afraid.
It's a bit hard to make any real-time response guarantees if a garbage collector can kick in at any time and spend an undefined amount of processing...
I disagree with your premise. When used carefully and properly, C++ is a great language, especially for a domain like real-time graphics, where speed is of the essence.
Memory management becomes easy if you design your system well, and use stl containers and smart pointers.
std::vector::const_iterator it = lotsOfThingys.begin()) will become much shorter if you use
using namespace std;
typedef vector::const_iterator ThingyConstIter;
And you can shorten compile times significantly by breaking up your systems into reasonably self-contained modules, by using precompiled headers, or by using the PIMPL idiom.
Perhaps a hybrid approach. Python and C++ make a good combination (see, for example, PyGame).
Some variation of Lisp that compiles to machine code could be almost as fast as C++ for this kind of programming. The Naughty Dog team created a version of Lisp called Game Oriented Assembly Lisp, which they used to create several AAA titles, including the Jak and Daxter series. The two major impediments to a Lisp approach in the game industry would be the entrenched nature of C/C++ development (both tools and human assets are heavily invested in C/C++), as well as the difficulty of finding talented engineers who are stars in both the game programming domain and the Lisp language.
Many programming teams in the industry are shifting to a hybrid approach wherein the real-time code, especially graphics and physics code, is written in C or C++, but game logic is done in a higher-level scripting language, which is accessible to and editable by programmers and non-programmers alike. Lua and Python are both popular for higher-level scripting.
Let's not forget to mention the new 'auto' use:
auto it = lotsOfThingys.begin(); // Let the compiler figure it out.
auto it2 = lotsOfFoos.begin();
if (it==it2) // It's still strongly typed; a Thingy iter is not a Foo iter.
As a developer/researcher/professor of 3D VR applications for some 20 years I would suggest there is no alternative (except possibly C). The only way to reduce latency and enable real-time interaction is an optimized compiled language (eg C or C++) with access to a fast relaible 3D graphics library such as OpenGL. While I agree it is flustrating to have to code everything, this is also essential for performanc and optimization.
Sometimes, looking outside the beaten path you can find a real gem. You might want to consider PureBasic (Don't let the name mislead you). Here's some details:
PureBasic Features
Machine Code (Assembly) executables (FASM)
In-line Assembly support
No run-times needed (no DLLs needed,etc.) 1 executable file
Tiny executables (as small or smaller/as fast or faster than C++ w/out the runtime)
You can write DLLs
Multi-thread support
Full OS API support
Multi-platform support
Windows 95-2003
Linux
Mac-OS X
Amiga
2D & 3D game development
DirectX
OGRE
Generous Licensing
Inexpensive (79 Euros or about $112)
Life-time license (all future updates & versions included)
One price for all platforms
External Library support
3rd party DLLs
User Libraries
On-line Support
Responsive development team led by it's creator
On-line forum
One place for answers (don’t have to go all over the net)
Huge amount of sample code (try code out while in IE with IEtool)
Fast replies to questions
Bonus learning (alternative to learning C++)
API
Structures
Interfaces
Pointers
Visit the online forum to get a better idea of PureBasic (http://www.purebasic.fr/english/index.php) or the main site: www.purebasic.com
I completely agree with the mention of C# for graphics programming. It has the slight disadvantage of being a managed language and allowing the garbage collector free reign over your application is framerate suicide after a while but with some relatively intelligent pool allocations made early in the program's life any real issues can be avoided.
Several people have already mentioned XNA, which is incredibly friendly and well-documented and I would like to echo that recommendation as well. I'm personally using it for my hobby game projects and it has treated me very well.
XNA isn't the only alternative, though. There is also SlimDX which is under constant development as a means of providing a lean wrapper of DirectX in a similar fashion as Managed DirectX (which was, I believe, discontinued by Microsoft in favor of XNA). Both are worthy of research: http://code.google.com/p/slimdx/
There are no true alternatives for big AAA titles, especially on the consoles. For smaller titles C# should do.
C# is a good answer here - it has a fair garbage collection (although you'd have to profile it quite a bit - to change the way you handle things now that the entire memory handling is out of your hands), it is simple to use, have a lot of examples and is well documented.
In the 3D department it gives full support for shaders and effects and so - that would be my choice.
Still, C# is not as efficient as C++ and is slower due to overhead, so if it is speed and the flexibility to use any trick in the book you like (with pointers and assembly if you like to get your hands dirty) - stick to C++ and the price would be writing way more code as you mentioned, but having full control over everything including memory management.
I would say the D programming language is a good option. You can link to C object files and interface with C++ code through C libraries. D has garbage collection, inline assembly, and game developers have created bindings to SDL and OpenGL libraries, and are also actively working on new game development apis. I love D. Too bad my job doesn't demand it's use. :(
Like James (hopkin), for me, the hybrid approach is the best solution. Python and C++ is a good choice, but other style like C#/C++ works. All depends of your graphical context. For game, XNA is a good platform (limited to win32), in this case C#/C++ is the best solution. For scientific visualization, Python/C++ is accepted (like vtk's bindings in python). For mobile game JAVA/C++ can works...
If you are targeting Windows, C++/CLI (Microsoft's .NET 'managed' dialect of C++) is an interesting possibility, particularly if you want to leverage your C++ experience. You can mix native code (e.g. calls to C-style libraries) with .NET managed code quite seamlessly, and take advantage of .NET GC and libraries.
As far as concerns about GC impacting 'real time' performance, I think those tend to be overblown. The multi-generational .NET GC is very good at never taking much time to do a collection, unless you are in some kind of critical low-memory situation. I write .NET code that interacts with electronic derivatives exchanges, where time delays == lots of $$$, and we have never had a GC-related issue. A few milliseconds is a long, long time for the GC, but not for a human interacting with a piece of software, even a 'real time' game. If you really need true "real time" performance (for medical devices, process control, etc.) then you can't use Windows anyway - it's just not a real-time OS.
Lot of game engines can fit your need, I suppose. For example, using SDL or Cairo, if portability is needed. Lot of scripting languages (coming in general with easy syntax and garbage collection) have binding to these canvas.
Flash might be another alternative.
I will just point out Processing, which is an open source programming language and environment for people who want to program images, animation, and interactions.
Actually, it is a thin wrapper around Java, making it look like a scripting language: it has a (primitive) IDE when you can type a few lines of code and hit Run without even having to save the file. Actually it wraps the code around a class and adds a main() call, compiles it and run it in a window.
Lot of people use it for real-time exhibitions (VJ and similar).
It has the power and limitations of Java, but adds out of the box a number of nice wrappers (libraries) to simplify access to Java2D, OpenGL, SVG, etc.
Somehow, it has become a model of simple graphics language: there are several applications trying to mimic Processing in other languages, like Ruby, Scala or Python. One of the most impressive is a JavaScript implementation, using the canvas component implemented in Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.
I vote c++0x. Partial support is already available in gcc-4.3+ using the -std=c++0x flag.
Would 'C' be too obvious an answer?
I have very successfully used C++ for the engine, with the application written in Lua on top. JavaScript is also very practical, now the latest generation of JIT based JS engines are around (tracemonkey, V8 etc).
I think C++ will be with us for a while yet; even Tim Sweeney hasn't actually switched to Haskell (pdf) yet, AFAIK :-)
Java and LWJGL (OpenGL wrapper) has worked well for me. If you're looking for more of a scene graph type library like Orge have a look at jMonkeyEngine which we used to create a google earth type application (see www.skapeworld.com). If you're sensible with object creation the garbage collection is a non issue.
If your target is a PC, I think you can try C#, or embed Lua in your C++ app and run scripts for 'high-level' stuff. However if your target is a console, you must manage your own memory!
Objective-C looks like a good match for your requirements (the latest version with optional GC), although it is too dynamic and Smalltalk-like for my taste.
XNA is your best bet I think. Being supported by the .NET framework you can build for a Windows or Xbox 360 platform by simply changing a setting in Game Studio. Best yet, all the tools are free!
If you decide to go with XNA you can easily get started using their quickstart guide
XNA Quickstart guide
It has been a rewarding and fun experiance for me so far, and a nice break from the memory management of C++.
Garbage collection is a must (as is
the ability to avoid its use when
necessary)
You can't disable a garbage collector temporarily. You would need a deterministic garbage collector then. But such a beast does come with a performance hit also. I think BEA JRockit is such a beast and then you should stick to Java.
Just to comment on your example; typedef is your friend...
typedef std::vector<Thingy> Thingys;
Thingys::const_iterator it = lotsOfThingys.begin()
Don't overlook independent languages in your quest. Emergence BASIC from Ionic Wind Software has a built in DirectX 9 engine, supports OOP and can easily interface with C libraries.
http://www.ionicwind.com
James.
The best enviroment for your project is the one you get your task done in the fastest way possible. This - especially for 3D-graphics - includes libraries.
Depending on the task, you may get away with some minor directx hacking. Then you could use .NET and slimdx. Managed languages tend to be faster to programm and easier to debug.
Perhaps you need a really good 3D-engine? Try Ogre3D or Irrlicht. You need commercial grade quality (one might argue that Ogre3D offers that) - go for Cryengine or Unreal. With Ogre3D and Irrlicht you might uses .NET as well, though the ports are not always up to date and plugins are not as easyly included as in the C++ versions. For Cryengine/Unrealengine you won't have a real choice I guess.
You need it more portable? OpenGL for the rescue - though you might need some wrapper (e.g. SDL).
You need a GUI as well? wxWidgets, QT might be a possiblity.
You already have a toolchain? Your libraries need to be able to handle the file formats.
You want to write a library? C / C++ might be a solution, since most of the world can use C / C++ libraries. Perhaps with the use of COM?
There are still a lot of projects/libraries I did not mention (XNA, Boost, ...) and if you want to create some program that does not only display 3D-graphics, you might have other needs as well (Input, Sound, Network, AI, Database, GUI, ...)
To sum it up: A programming language is a tool to reach a goal. It has to be seen in the context of the task at hand. The task has its own needs and these needs may chose the language for you (e.g. you need a certain library to get a feature that takes long to programm and you can only access the library with language X).
If you need the one-does-nearly-all: try C++/CLI (perhaps in combination with C# for easier syntax).
Good question.
As for the 'making me type far too much', C++0x seems to address most of it
as mentioned:
auto it = lotsOfThingys.begin()) // ... deduce type, just like in *ML
VS2010beta implements this already.
As for the memory management - for efficiency - you will have to keep good track of memory allocations, with or without garbage collection (ie, make memory-pools, re-use allocated object sometimes) anyhow, so that eventually whether your environment is garbage collected or not, matters less. You'll have to explicitly call the gc() as well, to keep the memory from fragmenting.
Having consistent ways to manage memory is important anywhere.
RAII - is a killer feature of C++
Another thing - is that memory is just one resource, you still have to keep track of other resources with a GC, so RIAA.
Anyhow, C# - is a nice alternative in many respects, I find it a very nice language, especially the ability to write functional-style code in it (the cute lambda -> syntax, map/select 'LINQ' syntax etc), thus the possibility to write parallel code; while it's still a 'standard curly-brackets', when you (or your colleagues) need it.
Have a look to Delphi/Pascal Object and some exemples :
http://www.delphigamer.com or http://glscene.cjb.net/
You can look at Ada. There is no garbage collector but this language is oftenly used for real-time system needing high reliability. That means less debuging times for your 3D applications.
And, you can also look at Haskell, if you don't know the functional paradigm this language will look weird to you, but it's worth a bit of your time. Tim Sweeney (EPIC Inc) is considering this language as a C++ alternative.