.NET Framework (well not exactly)

Index > Windows > .NET Framework (well not exactly)

Author

Thread

Chewy509

Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 297
Location: Bris-vegas, Australia

Chewy509 24 May 2007, 03:45

Hi Guys,

Since from my current understanding that it's not possible to make use of the .NET framework directly from our asm written applications, does anyone know a way to emulate or reproduce the look and feel of .NET based apps using the Win32 API, either through a 3rd-party DLL, native Win32 DLLs or some library/wrapper that someone here has written?

I've searched through MSDN (and can't find it), but does anyway have the current UI design guidelines for Windows (for .NET based applications)? Just a link would be fine.

PS. I know .NET applications can call DLLs we make using fasm, but my understanding, not the other way around since .NET apps are compiled not to native machine code, but rather to a byte-code form, (which is then assembled into machine code at run-time).

24 May 2007, 03:45

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 24 May 2007, 10:02

i believe it can cooperate both ways, i have been reading some MSDN blogs on it. But i can't find them now, and it seems to be very rarely used

24 May 2007, 10:02

Filter

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67

Filter 28 May 2007, 19:16

IMO, there is really no point to calling .NET code from asm. You might as well just write code in C# or VB if you want to use the .NET runtime.

I'm sure there are ways to reproduce the look and feel though. Look at this link...

http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/controls/buttonctrl/advancedbuttons/article.php/c5161/

You create the way the controls look. This will probably get you close anyway.

28 May 2007, 19:16

Adam Kachwalla

Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 150

Adam Kachwalla 28 May 2007, 20:58

Filter has a point. For a small program (in terms of bytes), there is no point adding an extra 50MB redistribution along with it, esp. if the program only takes up something like 300KB! .NET is too bloated and too slow to be used in "standalone" applications anyway, and defeats the purpose of ASM (for speed)

28 May 2007, 20:58

Chewy509

Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 297
Location: Bris-vegas, Australia

Chewy509 29 May 2007, 00:38

I can fully appreciate on why NOT to use the .NET framework from a programmers viewpoint. (Did we really need another incompatible Application Framework in the first place)?

But from a user's perspective anything written to the base Win32/MFC looks "old" and "outdated", and if assembler programmers are to keep mind-share, we need and required to keep our applications looking first class... Not only for the end-users, but also for upcoming developers. If we can show that assembler stills matters, and we can create applications that:
a, offer the same or better functionality than C#/C++/VB apps
b, offer the same (modern) look and feel as .NET apps
c, offer better performance
d, offer a decent framework to work in (FRESH comes to mind)
not only do we grab prestige, but also new developers who don't want to become stuck within the MS timetable of development tools. (It seems every year that MS releases a new API/Framework/Compiler Suite that people keep having to learn in order to stay current and ahead of the game).

Up until Vista and even Beryl (for those on Linux), application looks mattered less than functionality. However it appears that in this day and age, looks matters more than functionality (which IMHO is outrageous).

Hence the question.

PS. Filter, thanks for the link.

29 May 2007, 00:38

KRA

Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 24

KRA 29 May 2007, 10:24

I must say that the technique for creating dialogs etc. used in .NET makes the programs look ugly.
Even a 4 year old kid can do it better.

.NET has it's points but the only thing within it that on the right track is the ability to
make code only runnable under specific permissions.

Too bad I'm the only one at my work who doesn't see .NET as something useful.

Remeber all years back when ever M$ anounced updates and new stuff ?
No one would take the train until atleast version 2 of that thing was up.

Now M$ say .NET and everyone is using it without thinking for more than 1/4 micro second about
if it is a smart or even better solution than what they was using before...

Anyway, This is MY thoughts about it (I hope I'm not alone)

29 May 2007, 10:24

Goplat

Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181

Goplat 29 May 2007, 17:51

You don't need to make controls owner-drawn to get them XP themed, there's just this XML you need to put into the resources. http://www.codeproject.com/w2k/xptheme.asp

29 May 2007, 17:51

Filter

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67

Filter 31 May 2007, 15:26

.NET controls are more than just XP themed though, they do have additional style to them.

I never said not to program from .NET, instead I simply made the statement that it wouldn't make sense to access .NET from assembler for the purpose of creating a nice GUI. You lose the performance and other benefits of assembler if you do that.

.NET like any other language/framework/programming tool has it's benefits and weaknesses. To say that .NET is horrible and should never be used may cause you to miss out on many opportunities where .NET could be of great value.

Last edited by Filter on 16 Jun 2007, 16:22; edited 1 time in total

31 May 2007, 15:26

Adam Kachwalla

Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 150

Adam Kachwalla 31 May 2007, 21:17

KRA wrote:

I must say that the technique for creating dialogs etc. used in .NET makes the programs look ugly.
Even a 4 year old kid can do it better.

.NET has it's points but the only thing within it that on the right track is the ability to
make code only runnable under specific permissions.

Too bad I'm the only one at my work who doesn't see .NET as something useful.

Remeber all years back when ever M$ anounced updates and new stuff ?
No one would take the train until atleast version 2 of that thing was up.

Now M$ say .NET and everyone is using it without thinking for more than 1/4 micro second about
if it is a smart or even better solution than what they was using before...

Anyway, This is MY thoughts about it (I hope I'm not alone)

Yea... Why not draw on the XP/.NET (although Vista looks cool) style? I mean it would make more sense than using .NET, JUST for the UI!

Don't worry. You're not alone (although I'm sure there is at least one Microsoft® Fanatic™ prowling around the board inaccurately stating that "MS.NET ROCKS!")

31 May 2007, 21:17

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 03 Jun 2007, 22:47

here is the info i meantioned. It indicates that .net code and C++ (native) code can cooperate nicely:

http://blogs.msdn.com/branbray/

03 Jun 2007, 22:47

Filter

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67

Filter 16 Jun 2007, 16:26

Adam Kachwalla wrote:

KRA wrote:
I must say that the technique for creating dialogs etc. used in .NET makes the programs look ugly.
Even a 4 year old kid can do it better.

.NET has it's points but the only thing within it that on the right track is the ability to
make code only runnable under specific permissions.

Too bad I'm the only one at my work who doesn't see .NET as something useful.

Remeber all years back when ever M$ anounced updates and new stuff ?
No one would take the train until atleast version 2 of that thing was up.

Now M$ say .NET and everyone is using it without thinking for more than 1/4 micro second about
if it is a smart or even better solution than what they was using before...

Anyway, This is MY thoughts about it (I hope I'm not alone)

Yea... Why not draw on the XP/.NET (although Vista looks cool) style? I mean it would make more sense than using .NET, JUST for the UI!

Don't worry. You're not alone (although I'm sure there is at least one Microsoft® Fanatic™ prowling around the board inaccurately stating that "MS.NET ROCKS!")

Actually, I'm quite fond of Microsoft .NET. I don't see anything wrong with using it. It does have some drawbacks but generally speaking it gets the job done.

16 Jun 2007, 16:26

Filter

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67

Filter 16 Jun 2007, 16:27

vid wrote:

here is the info i meantioned. It indicates that .net code and C++ (native) code can cooperate nicely:

http://blogs.msdn.com/branbray/

I think that is a compiler feature that allows the code to jump from native to .NET and back. This would be like a special PInvoke with the native code built in to the exe.

16 Jun 2007, 16:27

Adam Kachwalla

Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 150

Adam Kachwalla 16 Jun 2007, 23:41

Filter wrote:

Adam Kachwalla wrote:

KRA wrote:
I must say that the technique for creating dialogs etc. used in .NET makes the programs look ugly.
Even a 4 year old kid can do it better.

.NET has it's points but the only thing within it that on the right track is the ability to
make code only runnable under specific permissions.

Too bad I'm the only one at my work who doesn't see .NET as something useful.

Remeber all years back when ever M$ anounced updates and new stuff ?
No one would take the train until atleast version 2 of that thing was up.

Now M$ say .NET and everyone is using it without thinking for more than 1/4 micro second about
if it is a smart or even better solution than what they was using before...

Anyway, This is MY thoughts about it (I hope I'm not alone)

Yea... Why not draw on the XP/.NET (although Vista looks cool) style? I mean it would make more sense than using .NET, JUST for the UI!

Don't worry. You're not alone (although I'm sure there is at least one Microsoft® Fanatic™ prowling around the board inaccurately stating that "MS.NET ROCKS!")

Actually, I'm quite fond of Microsoft .NET. I don't see anything wrong with using it. It does have some drawbacks but generally speaking it gets the job done.

I'm not saying that MS.NET is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind... I am saying that there is simply no point using .NET in an application written in ASM (especially if all you are after is looks)

16 Jun 2007, 23:41

Filter

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67

Filter 30 Jun 2007, 13:57

I just found out that a large part, if not all, of the .NET framework is exposed by a COM interface. It should be easy to use the .NET framework from assembler as long as you have a handle on using COM/ActiveX in assembler.

I believe this was done so that older VB6 applications can take advantage of it.

30 Jun 2007, 13:57

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum