I need to build a C++ library to distribute among our customers. The library must be able to be accessed from a wide range of languages including VB6, C++, VB.net and C#.
I've being using ActiveX controls (ocx files) until now. But I wonder if there is a better kind of library (dll, etc.) that I can build. What do you recommend?
I'm limited to C++ as the library language, but you can mention other languages for reference to other developers.
P.S. Sorry if the question was already asked. I had some trouble finding a suitable title. Feel free to correct my English.
Edit: Seems like the best choice is either DLLs or OCX (i.e., COM), but I'm still having some doubts on which one will I choose. Which one is more suitable to modern languages (.NET for instance)? Which one would be easier to use from an end developer perspective?
Almost every language has a way of loading dynamic libraries and accessing exported C functions from them.
There is nothing preventing you from using C++ inside the dll but for maximum portability, export only C functions.
I have some more about this in this post.
If you're looking at supporting both VB6 and .NET, you're pretty much stuck with exposing interfaces via COM, but at least that'll get you out of having to create more than one wrapper based on the language/runtime system you're trying to interact with.
If there is any chance this will need to be ported to non windows platforms then a DLL / Shared library is your best choice as a COM object really isn't at all portable.
In addition you can call a DLL from almost any platform even if it requires you to write a wrapper of some kind. It's pretty easy to wrap a dll in a com object but if you make a native com object it's a lot harder to add a C style DLL API. Plus you might want to call it from java for example and it's much easier to write a JNI wrapper to call your DLL than get it working with COM in any kind of cross platform way.
Really it depends on what platforms you really need to call it from and how certain you can be that you won't get something out of the ordinary in future.
To be callable from all those languages your only real option is going to be COM, without having to write wrappers where required (which would defeat the point)
Related
I am learning C++ with the intention to make programs with zero dependencies.
I am noticing that throughout my code I later find out that a libary/dll/functions I have been using requires the machine running it to have .NET installed or some other package.
How can I detect this beforehand?
Are most things that are possible with these .NET libaries/dlls/functions possible with only Native C++ libaries/dlls/functions?
I assumed so.
How can I detect this beforehand?
Basically don't use anything beyond C++ standard library, which is described here or here.
A tool like Dependency Walker can be handy.
You can also use static libraries to make program less dependent on DLLs.
Are most things that are possible with these .NET
libaries/dlls/functions possible with only Native C++
libaries/dlls/functions?
The point is modern software must depend on some underlying framework and libraries, because it's pointless/impossible to write everything from scratch using only standard library. If you want to write rich application you need something like .NET. It can be cross-platform framework tho, like qt, which will give you more flexibility.
With native c++, I mean, not managed c++, not cli, not any special things from microsoft, I can:
1) get high performance
2) use existing c++ code library and engine
3) write cross platform code (for example, for ios and android)
it needn't be fully native c++, I can use managed code to do the ui things, like object-c in ios and java in android, but beside interface, can I use native c++ code?
I suggest you have a look at the presentation here: Using the Windows Runtime from C++ and especially at the comments from Herb Sutter. I quote:
Please answer this question: If I decide to write C++ GUI application
in Metro style am I forced to use all these proprietary ref, sealed,
^, Platform::String^ extensions for GUI components or not?
#Tomas: No, you are not forced to use them. We are providing two
supported ways:
1) These language extensions (C++/CX).
2) A C++ template library (WRL), see
Windows Kits\8.0\Include\winrt\wrl as Yannick mentioned. WRL is a C++
library-based solution sort of along the lines of ATL, which offers
what I think you're looking for -- template wrapper/convenience
classes and explicit smart pointers and such.
Yes you absolutely can, real native C++ is fully supported.
You do however mostly have to use the new WinRT libraries to do an user interface or system calls and although they are native code and fully callable from C++ directly the interface to them makes it very painful indeed to do so, as everything is a reference counted COM object and in addition it's not so easy to create instances of them as just calling "new" so you have to write a lot of ugly code to do so.
As the earlier answer said, microsoft provide two ways to help with this. One is via language extensions to c++ and the other is a c++ template library. Personally I consider both to be rather ugly for doing something as simple as calling an API but that's just me :)
But to answer your question, it's completely possible to write your application in real native c++. You won't need to use managed code at all for anything. But you'll probably want to use either the language extensions or the template library to make calling the API more easy.
Personally I'm hoping someone writes a wrapper for WinRT that exposes the most necessary functionality as a more usable c++ native library and then everyone can just use that from c++ instead...
Suppose I have two projects that I would like to link together:
A C++ library compiled with Visual C++ to a DLL file.
A C++ executable compiled with C++ Builder that uses the classes in the library.
I realize that there is no standard C++ ABI and that any attempts to directly link these two C++ projects together will fail. What is a good, automated way of creating a compatibility layer that allows me to accomplish this?
For example, conceivably the C++ library could expose itself via a C interface. Then the executable would have some C++ classes that wrap the C interface exposed by the C++ library. Since there is a standard ABI for C, it would work.
The only question is how to automatically create the C interface and C++ wrapper classes - manually maintaining this would not be an option. The SWIG project looks promising, but unfortunately, C++ is not one of the exits of SWIG listed on their web site. Is there a way to do what I want with SWIG? Or is there another project other than SWIG that would help me with this task?
Or am I going about this the wrong way?
Edit: The core C++ library is intended to be cross-platform. The executable, obviously, is Windows-specific. I don't want to pollute the core library to the extent that it becomes impossible to compile it on other platforms.
If it only has to run on Windows, I would expose the classes as COM objects. They'll still be in a DLL and they can be used by any language which understands COM.
The "standard" way of doing this, in Windows, is to use COM objects. So, that is certainly a good option to look at. In Linux systems, the module interaction model (e.g., executable-DLL interaction) is very different, and ABIs exist for C++.
If you would want to do this manually (create your own COM-like library), it can be a lot of work with many little tricky issues to take seriously. You'll need a cross-module RTTI system, you'll need an interface query/definition protocol, some mechanism to manage memory across modules, etc. Beyond that, to "automate" it, you will probably need a combination of MACROs and template meta-functions.
One cross-platform option that I would highly recommend that you consider or at least look at is using Boost.Python and the Python language as the "glue" between your modules. The Boost.Python library basically does the whole "automated exporting / importing of classes", but it exports your C++ classes and functions as Python classes and functions. And, it is completely non-intrusive and cross-platform, so this is really an ideal example of automated exporting. So, you might consider using Python to write your high-level glue-code, or using Python as an intermediate between the C++ modules, or even reworking the Boost.Python library to use only the "automated exporting" mechanisms to export to whatever interface system you design or use.
I'm sure there a plenty other similar libraries out there. But the number one question is, of course, do you really need this? You might be using a bazooka to kill a fly.
Why not just compile the library with C++ builder as well?
Looking around at swig (I knew swig should be able to wrap C++ in C):
SWIG and C++
If core library is cross-platform why not also write the UI as a cross-platform Qt application and build everything in Visual C++ on Windows.
I have a library written in C++/CLI and I want to open it up. I want it to be as cross-platform as possible and be able to write bindings to it for other languages to use (Java, Python, etc, etc). To do this, the library needs to be in plain C++ for maximum flexibility. I figure that the logical structures are already there, I just need to replace the .NET libraries it uses with the standard C++ ones. Is this a misguided notion? What should I watch out for when making this transition?
It might be more trouble than it's worth. Here is what you might come across:
There is no garbage collection in C++. This is the big one. This may require a significant redesign of your library just to convert. If you are using at least C++ tr1, or the boost library, you can sort of get there by using shared_ptr, but there are important fundamental differences. For example, you must be wary of circular dependencies. Also, they make debugging difficult without specific support for them in the debugger.
Functions in .Net classes which have no equivalent in C++ stl or the standard library. Probably the biggest hurtle will be any string manipulation code you have written since there are lot of differences there.
Class libraries/assemblies are not built-in to C++ - every platform has its own method of creating dynamic or shared libraries, and there isn't much support for C++ shared libraries - only C libraries in many cases. Be prepared to make everything a static library.
You must manage all your resources yourself.
Never done a port of C++/Cli to C++, but this comes to my mind:
Make sure that you dont have memory leaks. Use smart-pointers instead of gcnew, if possible (if not, make sure your code is exception safe nontheless).
Make sure your libraries interface only consists of builtin types (builtin does not include types of the STL! however this is not coercively necessary if you go open source)
I'm just starting my first C++ project. I'm using Visual Studio 2008. It's a single-form Windows application that accesses a couple of databases and initiates a WebSphere MQ transaction. I basically understand the differences among ATL, MFC, Win32 (I'm a little hazy on that one actually) and CLR, but I'm at a loss as to how I should choose.
Is one or more of these just there for backward-compatibility?
Is CLR a bad idea?
Any suggestions appreciated.
Edit:
I've chosen C++ for this project for reasons I didn't go into in the post, which are not entirely technical. So, assuming C++ is the only/best option, which should I choose?
It depends on your needs.
Using the CLR will provide you with the most expressive set of libraries (the entire .NET framework), at the cost of restricting your executable to requiring the .NET framework to be installed at runtime, as well as limiting you to the Windows platform (however, all 4 listed technologies are windows only, so the platform limitation is probably the least troublesome).
However, CLR requires you to use the C++/CLI extensions to the C++ language, so you'll, in essense, need to learn some extra language features in order to use this. Doing so gives you many "extras," such as access to the .net libraries, full garbage collection, etc.
ATL & MFC are somewhat trickier to decide between. I'd refer you to MSDN's page for choosing in order to decide between them. The nice thing about ATL/MFC is that you don't need the .NET framework, only the VC/MFC runtimes to be installed for deployment.
Using Win32 directly provides the smallest executables, with the fewest dependencies, but is more work to write. You have the least amount of helper libraries, so you're writing more of the code.
Win32 is the raw, bare-metal way of doing it. It's tedious, difficult to use, and has a lot of small details you need to remember otherwise things will fail in relatively mysterious ways.
MFC builds upon Win32 to provide you an object-oriented way of building your application. It's not a replacement for Win32, but rather an enhancement - it does a lot of the hard work for you.
System.Windows.Forms (which is what I assume you meant by CLR) is completely different but has large similarities to MFC from its basic structure. It's by far the easiest to use but requires the .NET framework, which may or may not be a hindrance in your case.
My recommendation: If you need to avoid .NET, then use MFC, otherwise use .NET (in fact, in that case, I'd use C# as it's much easier to work with).
As far as C++ goes, I would use WTL. It's lightweght and you will have few (if any) dependencies, making it easy to ship and install. I find it very satisfying when my app consists of a single EXE that will run on most versions of Windows, but this may not be a concern to you.
If you choose to go .NET instead, then C# is almost certainly the way to go.
More in WTL here:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/wtl/wtl4mfc1.aspx
I would be very curious as to why you would do this in C++ at all. Based on your brief description, C# sounds like a much more appropriate choice.
Just to elaborate a bit, look at the link you gave describing the C++ CLR. The top rated answer notes (accurately, in my opinion) that C++ is appropriate for "kernel, games, high-performance and server apps" - none of which seems to describe what you're doing.
MFC, ATL, etc are going to be supported in the sense that, yes you'll be able to compile your app on future versions of Visual Studio and run them on future versions of Windows. But they're not supported in the sense that there's not a lot of new development going on in the API or the language the same way there is in the CLR and C#.
There is nothing wrong with CLR. Like others here I'd suggest C# but as you have reasons for sticking with C++ then using the .NET framework is several thousand times easier than messing with ATL/MFC if you're not already familiar with them (IMO).
It may be worth mentioning that if you're using C++/CLR then you're not really using C++ at all. C++/CLR compiles to CIL just like C#. I've never used it myself but I believe its purpose is to allow you to compile legacy code and make it easily available to new .NET code rather than allow new code work with old C++ executables. There are other methods of calling native code from .NET which, perhaps, you should explore.
The modern (2021) answer to this question would appear to be to use C++/WinRT instead of C++/CLR (or C++/CLI or C++/CX... jeez Microsoft):
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/cpp-and-winrt-apis/intro-to-using-cpp-with-winrt
C++/WinRT is an entirely standard modern C++17 language projection for Windows Runtime (WinRT) APIs, implemented as a header-file-based library, and designed to provide you with first-class access to the modern Windows API. With C++/WinRT, you can author and consume Windows Runtime APIs using any standards-compliant C++17 compiler.
...
C++/WinRT is Microsoft's recommended replacement for the C++/CX language projection
It's basically standard C++ but the UI is defined with XAML.
Still though, as with the other answers, it would appear that using C# is really microsoft's favorite approach. C++/WinRT really looks like it's almost C# anyways.