Sujet : Re: Do Microsoft?s Copilot+ PCs Require Linux?
De : bowman (at) *nospam* montana.com (rbowman)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacyDate : 29. May 2024, 01:29:00
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <lbn7lqF9dqhU2@mid.individual.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Pan/0.149 (Bellevue; 4c157ba)
On Tue, 28 May 2024 14:36:37 -0400, Joel wrote:
I would use the features of CPP that are not OOP, but otherwise, regular
C is all one needs, aside from minor things only assembly can do
(largely OS core/device drivers).
Other than Esri stuff my C++ looks a lot like C but then so does
Stroustrup's in the edition I have. Esri's ArcObjects is COM based so they
make extensive use of smart pointers. It took me a while to get used to
IFeaturePtr pFeature;
IGeometryPtr pGeometry;
ICurvePtr pCurve;
....
pFeature->get_Shape(&pGeometry);
pCurve = pGeometry
The first one makes sense. There is a bunch of variant and BSTR mumbo-
jumbo that goes with COM but pFeature->get_Value(someField) works like you
would thing but there is no pFeature->get_Curve), only the magical
assignment instead of even pGeometry->get_Curve(&pCurve);
The docs weren't that great so it was often 'okay, I've got this, not how
the hell do I get that?'
The other problem with C++ for me was the awkward way it was hatched that
let Microsoft fill in the blanks so you have things like String and
string.