• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Concepts that Dim Prawn could never grasp"

Collapse

  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Places in Majorca.

    Leave a comment:


  • suityou01
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Hmm, I had a book that was a complete reference to every function/enum/struct in the API (maybe not including undocumented ones, can't remember).
    By contrast a similar book on .NET would need several volumes if you want to cover WCF, WPF, WWF and all that junk.

    Isn't .NET technically the Windwos API, as exposed in a managed way? Is there even such a thing as a C-style API for windows7, or do they actually write large parts of Windows in .NET these days?
    I would gently disagree.

    There is for example

    One book on NETAPI
    One on GDI
    One of shell
    One on registry.

    Threading, mmc, mapi ... the list goes on. The windows api is a vast vast topic.

    I agree it's the bits Microsoft want you to see though. And it is API, vm is correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    I think the .NET framework is a little more complex than the Win32 API, if better designed (how many damn string types do you need, Win32?!)
    There's only one string type in the Win32 API, unless you count ANSI and Unicode as two seperate ones, but 99.9% of the time you just build your program one way or the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amiga500
    replied
    It's an API not an api, life is case-sensitive.

    Google 'acronym' arse clowns.

    Leave a comment:


  • scotspine
    replied
    Originally posted by suityou01 View Post


    The windows api IS windows, lock stock. It is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge topic.
    That said, the framework is complicated enough.
    noooooooooooo - the api is the bits of windows that m$ are happy for you to see.

    "Isn't .NET technically the Windwos API" - and some...

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by suityou01 View Post


    The windows api IS windows, lock stock. It is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge topic.
    That said, the framework is complicated enough.
    Hmm, I had a book that was a complete reference to every function/enum/struct in the API (maybe not including undocumented ones, can't remember).
    By contrast a similar book on .NET would need several volumes if you want to cover WCF, WPF, WWF and all that junk.

    Isn't .NET technically the Windwos API, as exposed in a managed way? Is there even such a thing as a C-style API for windows7, or do they actually write large parts of Windows in .NET these days?

    Leave a comment:


  • suityou01
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    I think the .NET framework is a little more complex than the Win32 API, if better designed (how many damn string types do you need, Win32?!)

    Apart from having to call ZeroMemory on every object you wanted to use, I quite liked Win32. It was certainly preferable to working with (D)COM!


    The windows api IS windows, lock stock. It is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge topic.
    That said, the framework is complicated enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • alreadypacked
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    This might up being a very long thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    IR35 is unworkable. Oops - wrong dim prawn.

    Leave a comment:


  • suityou01
    replied
    3 inches is under sized

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    The fact that it rained today doesn't mean global warming is a myth.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    This being a millionaire requires having a million pounds. not Zimbabwe dollars.

    Leave a comment:


  • Platypus
    replied
    A "mansion" is not a bedsit above the local chippy

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Swindon is not the best place in the world?

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    And that when German car manufacturers say they're the best it's not weally weally twue. Bit gullible is our Dim.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X