A demonstration that Direct. D is patently ridiculous. The previous blog post expressed the opinion that Microsofts new Direct. D API is bad. Some people might have been thinking, hey, thats just your opinion, Direct. D is actually kind of neat. As responsible party Thomas Olsen says on his blog, Direct. D is layered on top of Direct. D. The goal of such an abstraction layer ought to be to make the underlying functionality easy to understand, use and debug. It seems like a natural question, then if we take that hideous Rectangle demo application and re implement it in Direct. D, what does it look like I have the answer for you today I wrote a Direct. Add Microsoft Directx Direct Sound Create Failed' title='Add Microsoft Directx Direct Sound Create Failed' />D version of this application. The output looks like this click for full sized image The source code is here. Add Microsoft Directx Direct Sound Create Failed For User' title='Add Microsoft Directx Direct Sound Create Failed For User' />You can compare it with Microsofts version header file, cpp file. My version Direct. D is 3. 08 lines long. Microsofts version Direct. D is 5. 19 lines long, or 6. There are some reasons why this code size comparison may not be equally weighted, which Ill discuss at the end of the posting. But lets get to the important point. Just look at the code for the two of these examples. We know that 2. D is a lot simpler than 3. D. So, looking at the Direct. D code, it should be much easier to understand, right Looking at these samples side by side, do you find that to be true Honestly There are a couple of functions in the Direct. SubInACL is a commandline tool that enables administrators to obtain security information about files, registry keys, and services, and transfer this. How to Change DirectX Settings. Microsoft DirectX is a set of Application Programming Interfaces API required for running the multimedia features contained within. D code that might be confusing to someone who hasnt done any 3. D stuff I think rendering2d is the main one. But a hey, if I were to write a 2. D API, that function would just be the default and the user would never see it b at least it is only confusing in terms of having some obscure numbers being computed not in terms of having control flow go somewhere surprising, or having resources allocated and destroyed behind your back and not understanding the scope of when things exist both of which are much, much worse. Which brings up an important point The Direct. D version does not need to allocate permanent resources that would need to be tracked, destroyed on a reset, etc. Direct. 2D has you allocating ludicrous things like solid color brushes, which for some reason are intimately tied to the device and need to be reset all the time. The D3. D version of the code proves this isnt necessary. The only allocated objects in use are the D3. D interface and device. This makes the program easier to write, easier to understand, and more robust. Now, about the code length comparison I started with the Microsoft. I kept the ridiculous 5 6 line block comments that dont say anything useful, just to keep the size comparison more even though the more you write fundamentally understandable code, the less you find it necessary to drown the code in comments. I couldnt bring myself to add these huge block comments to new functions, though, so if I were to do that, my version would be a bit longer. Also, I dont have a big copyright notice. Add Microsoft Directx Direct Sound Create Failed For Login' title='Add Microsoft Directx Direct Sound Create Failed For Login' />I am not using their bloated overkill Demo. App class or any structure related to that. AWS Partner Network Learn more about the AWS Partner Network and supporting Partner Programs. MDGx AXCEL216 MAX Speed Performance Windows 10 2012 8. Vista 2003 XP SP1 SP2 SP3 ME 2000 98 SE OSR2 OSR1 95 NT4 NT 3. DOS 6 Tricks Secrets Tips. TheINQUIRER publishes daily news, reviews on the latest gadgets and devices, and INQdepth articles for tech buffs and hobbyists. This results in a significant drop in program size, and an increase in understandability. Some people would say that its bad style not to use a wrapper class or something like that those people are wrong, and probably believe too much of what they were taught at school. But the point is, if I were to write the Direct. D app without using that Demo. App structure, it would be smaller and simper as well but not to the degree of the Direct. D app, I think. But then the real point is, Direct. D is designed by people who think this kind of Demo. App structure is a good idea. Again to keep length comparisons fair, I kept their 1 function argument per line style in places like the Create. Window call, but again, I couldnt bring myself to do that very many places in the new code that I wrote. Hint If you are so scared of function arguments that you need to put each one on a separate line or else they might bite you, then you are making way too big a deal out of calling a function. You are signaling that maybe you find calling a function a little difficult maybe you can barely manage itMr. Microsoft, I think youre making the problem more difficult than it really is. I didnt vary the thickness of the grid lines or the non filled rectangle in a device independent way. This would be some more lines of code 1. D API at a fundamental level, so its not really part of the comparison. BecauseMy point is, what would a Direct. D sample program look like if it were exactly Direct. Buddy Guy Best Of Download Free. D except with appropriate simplifications And the answer is, like the program I wrote here, but simpler. And that of course raises the next question, how could they have made this so much worse My impression is that Microsoft is pushing this API as the new thing for app writers in general to use when they do 2. D stuff. Its a noble aspiration to want to replace GDI, but this train wreck of an API is about the worst they could have chosen. Direct. 3D used to be terrible in its initial release, it was very hard to make games with it. Over all the many versions from Direct. X3 to the Direct. X9 used here, Microsoft slowly learned to cut the bullshit and aim the API toward things that people actually want to use. They never got all the way there an Open. GL version of this app would be even shorter and simpler, and a more complicated Open. GL program has none of the annoying problems with reference counting that Direct. D has Microsoft, cut it out with the reference counting already, you are only making life harder With each revision of Direct. X, game developers had to rewrite their games. But we did that, because hardware was evolving rapidly, and our games got big benefits out of being redesigned every 1 2 years anyway. This will not work for general application authors. Whatever Microsoft releases as the initial version of Direct. D, however horrible it is, they are going to be stuck supporting it for damn near forever, with full backward compatibility. Thats going to make it harder for them to revise the API, to evolve it toward something reasonable. For these reasons, I hope Direct. D doesnt catch on. I hope it is DOA. Because if it goes into widespread use, software developers lives are going to get a lot more complicated for no particular reason. Software itself will become that much harder to write, and thus will become even slower and more bug filled. I think I have ranted about this enough.