Apparently, the DirectX team has had a blog since late April of this year it’s just not very popular I guess.
They’ve posted a shipload of information over the last couple of months, so if you’re like me and had no idea this existed, you’ll have quite some reading to catch up to. It’s mostly about Windows 7 and the new graphics APIs (Direct2D, DirectWrite, etc.) but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Yeah, I don’t have the DX11 logo yet…Today the August 2009 DirectX SDK was released on MSDN, strangely enough the August SDK was released in September.
This release contains the first official release of Direct3D 11 (RTM), which was previously only a technical preview. According to the release notes, this version of Direct3D 11 will only work on the RTM version of Windows 7, not on the RC and Beta versions. So I guess only vendors and MSDN subscribers will be able to develop software until Windows 7 hits the retail market.
There’s also the issue of pure Direct3D 11 hardware not being sold yet but that should be right around the corner if the SDK is here.
I don’t know how many times I’ve ran into people that need help with a piece of C code that should run perfectly fine but for some reason it just doesn’t. Of course, after much going back and forward, you find out that the person you’re trying to help is using Borland’s Turbo C compiler version 2.01, released 20 years ago in 1989..
While the compiler is freely download-able from several websites labeled as an “Antique”, it’s really not a great tool to start programming with on modern systems. If you really (really) want to use Turbo C, buy an old 286 and go at it but don’t use your Intel Core i7. Here’s why. PS, this also applies to Turbo C++
1. The compiler is 20 years old, it won’t support the current C99 standard so many things you might have learned, you now have to unlearn in order to get the program working.
2. Turbo C is an MS-DOS compiler, chances are if you are learning C now, you have never used DOS in your life; there’s no reason to go back, nostalgia doesn’t apply to DOS. Furthermore, Windows does not support DOS programs from the 80’s, so you would have to emulate DOS in order to get your programs working properly.
3. There are many free compilers available that are 100% compatible with today’s hardware and not bound by any limitations. Even if your Turbo C compiler is 32 bit compatible, it’s not a great match for your 64 bit CPU and Operating System.
4. You’re stuck on the command line interface with no way out. Even if you make the best command line program for DOS, nobody besides yourself will ever want to use it. Converting your program to Win32 requires a new compiler that will yell at you for using coding practices from 1989 and break your program.
In other words, if the following code compiles without warning, you know you need another compiler.
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("Hello, World!");
}
OK, so only one day after I publicly whined “where is the DX SDK?” Microsoft has released the March 2009 version. Go figure. Get it here at DirectX 2009 SDK @ MS Download.
Also, there seems to be some interesting stuff bundled with this version of the SDK, here’s my take on the important stuff:
Check out the details at the link posted above. Also, it doesn’t look like the online MSDN library docs have been updated yet but usually that happens pretty quickly.
I wonder what kind of development is going on at Microsoft as there hasn’t been an update for the DirectX SDK since November of 2008. This is quite out-of-sync with their regular release schedule of a new SDK every 3 months.
My guess would be that with the release date of Windows 7 inching closer, the development for DirectX 11 has to be completed soon. Of course this is 100% speculation.
If anyone has a clue, let me know.
Edit: FYI, by Hungarian notation, I mean Systems Hungarian such as bIsSucky.
It seems I’m in some kind of pickle. For some reason, two of the programmers at the company I work for still use Hungarian notation.
In case you don’t know what that is, in short: Hungarian notation prefixes an abbreviation of either the data type or purpose of the variable to its name. For example, Microsoft’s WINAPI still uses it, hence we have things such as hInstance, nShow, szCompany, etc. So it’s quite ugly and confusing to the programmer.
Yet these two programmers still cling to their old ways and refuse to give up on this ancient method. Even in VB.NET. One of these programmers happens to be Joe the Programmer mentioned before, go figure.
I was asked by one of them “Why not use Hungarian notation?” In case you dind’t know, dear reader, the name of the variable should give away the data type, use UpperCamelCase and logic for your naming conventions. Turns out, UpperCamelCase is a programming convention in this company, so why we were arguing, I don’t know. Now if only logic were a convention, we’d be set.
But it was like pissing against the wind as neither them nor I were persuaded in the end. How would you persuade a person to switch to a different methodology? By them using Hungarian notation, people who will eventually take over their source code will want to shoot themselves.
Just released, get it while it’s hot.
It doesn’t look like there are any DirectX 11 previews in there. Is it my imagination or were those supposed to be in it? Thanks Aras for the confirmation that the DirectX 11 preview are actually in there.
EDIT2: The new DirectX redistributable was released today.
I’m not known as a person who particularly likes the .NET framework but I still have to use it. The .NET Framework is basically a massive library of general purpose functions, much like the Standard Library is to C or the Standard Template Library is to C++.
But what if it all would be discontinued?
It’s not an impossibility and rather likely considering Microsoft’s track-record. The millions of applications, libraries and websites created with .NET would be useless.
I’ve been *fortunate* enough to be part of a VB6 (CGI) to ASP.NET (VB) conversion team and, trust me when I say this, you don’t want to be part of such an effort. These conversions require truckloads of time and money, and if you work for a mid-sized to large corporation, this could easily lead into the millions of dollars.
Now imagine all of your code obsolete. Everything you’ve coded since .NET 1.0. What would you do? Let’s take FoxPro as an example. Microsoft bought FoxPro in 1992 and released a couple of versions under the “Visual”-family of products. The last version was released in 2007 and a statement of Microsoft suggests that this is the last version.
No migration tools to any other language are being provided.
Another product would be J#, which will be retired in 2015. Keep in mind that J# is a fairly recent product and was only released with Visual Studio.NET.
How far will .NET go before a turning point is reached? Consider that .NET was first released publicly in 2002 and will be a decade old in less than four years. Knowing Microsoft, the end is quite possibly much nearer than you think.