The software giant announced plans to release the Windows Template Library (WTL) project on SourceForge under an externally created open-source license. The WTL is a lightweight windowing C++ (define) template library that allows the creation of simple Windows GUI interfaces on Windows apps.
Microsoft Releases WTL Source Code
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
They’ll release the QBasic source code. Microsoft is really getting generous these days, aren’t they?
Could anyone point me towards some useful WTL tutorials?
Thanks.
Microsoft denounces Open Sources and now they open up tiny crappy part WTL … hmm is this bait and kill syndrome ?
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em!
Is it still anti-capitalist and communist to release open source software?
*And why is it when any product is commoditized, like say, video tape players & tvs, it is considered capitalism at work, but if CODE is commoditized, as in GPL software, it is called communist?*
Because those people who yacks about GPL communism haven’t got a clue what communism or GPL is all about.
Hi Darius,
what is the link for download the QBasic source code ?
thanks,
Was this really news?
MS is going to play whatever game they select to play. The rest of the world is going to do the same.
MS just plays all of these games much better than the “cash strapped” FOSS community. Get over it; they DO.
If they chose to release the source code for ANY of their OS’s tomarrow, the development world would certainly pay close attention.
they should released ATL to public, then we can use VC2003Toolkit + platform sdk + atl + wtl to develop windows applications and use windbg to debug it, except atl, all others are free to use and can be downloaded from microsoft
Euhh..
first they laugh, then they ignore, then they spread FUD ,then …
“Looks like Microsoft is getting tired of being on the side of evil, corruption, terrorism, and crimes against humanity”
Yea, because heaven forbid they make a profit! Can you believe it? A company thats in business to make money? How evil can you get?
I’m talking about the crimes, not about making money. I’m satisfied with a closed product line, but I think that the platform must be open. For you simple people who have not caught on yet, the platform is the operating system layer, and the product line is the application layer.
im used to c programing, and i enjoy porting c++ code to c, so far for the background.
i dont know much of c++ so maybe im wrong.
but my last expirience was the following… porting an app was mainly removing un-nessessary stuff…
the template was something like:
void allocateFloatMem(float *d, int l)
{
d = new float[l];
if (d == NULL) {
printf(“not enough memory … program aborted
“);
exit(1);
}
}
and then in other source files the coder used:
f = new float[len];
i mean, i plain c u would just write
f = (float *) malloc(l * sizeof(float));
in the maximum extended version.
so i got rid of c++ stuff, got rid of all the template files, got less lines of source code and the binary was smaller as well…
after poring the whole code the binary was 10 kb smaller, and some source files have been removed completely or got at least smaller as well..
is this usual? or just a corner case?
Eugene
im used to c programing, and i enjoy porting c++ code to c, so far for the background.
i dont know much of c++ so maybe im wrong.
but my last expirience was the following… porting an app was mainly removing un-nessessary stuff…
a template was something like:
void allocateFloatMem(float *d, int l)
{
d = new float[l];
if (d == NULL) {
printf(“not enough memory … program aborted
“);
exit(1);
}
}
and then in other source files the coder used:
f = new float[len];
i mean, i plain c u would just write
f = (float *) malloc(l * sizeof(float));
in the maximum extended version.
so i got rid of c++ stuff, got rid of all the template files, got less lines of source code and the binary was smaller as well…
after poring the whole code the binary was 10 kb smaller, and some source files have been removed completely or got at least smaller as well..
is this usual? or just a corner case?
Eugene
There aren’t any templates in the code you’ve posted.
C++ doesn’t need smaller source code than plain C ( although multimethod dispatch allows shorter names )
The ultimate goal of C++ was to make programming easier ( especially big SW ), more maintainable, more reusable … not to make programs shorter. Templates are the exception, they are precisely designed to reduce code bloat.
f = (float *) malloc(l * sizeof(float));
So what you do is basically removing any error checking? Sounds like a grand scheme 😉
WTL is more a private project of MS-employee Nenad Stefanovic than a product of Microsoft. And it has always been OpenSource. The only new thing is that it’s now hosted on Sourceforge.
many of these companies with too much power hide behind the repost “what? is it wrong to make a profit”, distracting us from the real malice they do. software companies strange knowledge which is useful to all mankind with patents and lawsuits, which is a game open only to the very rich. other companies actively hurt humans, societies and the environment, all knowingly and willingly, … but in common, their aim is not only to produce profit, but to ensure it by non-competitive means.
this is not the freemarket meritocratics that i know and love. this is a corruption of that. remember, the market is there to serve people, not the people to serve the market.
f = (float *) malloc(l * sizeof(float));
So what you do is basically removing any error checking? Sounds like a grand scheme 😉
How is that different from f = new float[l]? There isn’t any difference since float is a built in type. The error checking is still done in the if statement.
I think because he got rid of some C++ constructs, his compiled code size was reduced. Still not much to shout about though.
You do not have to handle every error condition after a function call in C++.
new float[l] will throw an exception, while malloc(..) will return NULL.
e.g.:
try
{
l = new object();
l->doSomething();
DoSomeIOTaskOn(l);
}
catch(…)
{
cerr << “Could not perform operation”;
}
You can even handle the error in another function lower down in call stack.
g()
{
int *i = new int[10];
}
f()
{
try
{
g();
}
catch(std::bad_alloc)
{
cerr << “Out of memory”;
}
}
It wonders me that they didn’t try to buy sourceforge 🙂
“Also, companies which rely on patents to stifle innovation use the authorities to create an artificial monopoly. What does that have to do with an authorian state? And the companies which don’t even program themselves but only use patents to sue (patent farms) are the terrorist!!”
You obviously have not clue why patents are in place. First of all that time a patent is grated for (20 year in US), gives the company time to make backes it’s investment in research. Microsoft spends just as much (billions) in R&D as it does in marketing, do you think they are just doing that out of the goodness of their heart. No, don’t be an idiot, they are doing it to make money.
Lets switch industries to make the point clear. A drug company spends 15 years creating a new drug for altimers. A 1/2 billion dollars is spent creating that drug. Now in the 20 years of the patent they have to make back that 1/2 billion dollars plus all the failed projects, so say another 1.5 billion. So in 20 years they have to make back 2 billion dollars on a single drug. Now if it was just released and any smoe with a the capibilies can make the same drug, because there is no pattent law. Innovations suddenly stops, because the drug research companies can no long make a profit, so they can no longer to research, and they can no longer sponser research in the unitiversities.
You may get your cheap drug, but chances are with out patent laws, the most innovative drug we would have would be penicyclin. It also doesn’t help that patent laws over sea’s are alot more liberal, like the UK has only 7 years. So you know what that means, short patent laws + foreign government regulations = More money being spent by the people with the longer patent laws.
So stop being a talking head of the standard GPL party line. And actually be intellectually honest, and realize with out patents there would be none of these companies that are now advancing Linux at great pases. IBM, Novell, Sun, etc. all make their money off patents from R&D they have done. And because they can make the profit in the 20 years they are provided in the US, they can thus turn around and sponser up start projects and projects that they don’t get money for like Linux.
You all have to realize with out patents, and a right to the knowledge that was patented, nobody would bother doing research because the money spent on the research wouldn’t be returned. This is one of the basic rules of economics, nobody is going to do the work if they don’t get any kind of payment back. Such as I am not going to work for free. Novell isn’t developing Linux because they feel it is the right thing to do, they hope to make a profit, just as IBM does and the many other corporate sponsered Linux programs. By releasing this software to the world Microsoft has garonteed it self good press and a buffer against future law suits around the world.
To leave you with my last thought. One thing that I have learned is “Nobody does anything for free!” They always hope for a return, many of these projects, such as Samaba and if my history isn’t evading me Linux, were start up projects as a way to get a masters degree. (So they weren’t doing it for free, the project had a non-monitary value)
How interesting… I constantly hear open source zealots (mostly of the Linux nature) screaming that Microsoft should open some of its code. So when they do what do I read? Posts about how evil Microsoft is! And one guy had the nerver to post how he never uses Microsoft products anymore, like this is some great achievement and we are all supposed to congratulate and be happy for him. Sorry dude, this is the real world. No one gives a toot what you are using.
How interesting… I constantly hear open source zealots (mostly of the Linux nature) screaming that Microsoft should open some of its code. So when they do what do I read? Posts about how evil Microsoft is! And one guy had the nerver to post how he never uses Microsoft products anymore, like this is some great achievement and we are all supposed to congratulate and be happy for him. Sorry dude, this is the real world. No one gives a toot what you are using.
That’s just the way some open source people are. When I worked at Earthlink, the second floor was called the dungeon. All the Unix/Linux admins worked on that floor. The lights were all off, everyone wore black, and anti-MS posters/propaganda were all over the place. When I’d go downstairs to the parking garage to smoke a cigarette a group of them would always be down there, and if you overheard their conversations all they talked about was Microsoft. Even though they don’t use their products they talk about them more than people that do. Just like the poster who feels he has to tell you he doesn’t use their products anymore. He may not use MS, but he probably thinks about and talks about MS from the time he wakes up to the time he goes to sleep. Kind of sad when you think about it, but it’s just the way some people are. It’s kind of like some of them think to be accepted into the OSS community they have to hate Microsoft; and they call MS users sheep, they’re the ones following the herd.
Can the discussion get any further off topic?
For those interested, the WTL is a very light weight wrapper for Windows development. It builds on the ATL and allows you to access standard Windows controls with object oriented code.
I’ve been using it for about two years now. There is a great community out there using it and with each release it has gotten better without getting over bloated and difficult to use.
The biggest problems with it right now are a significant lack of documentation and lack of any integration with the IDE – read that as ANY IDE. The best anyone has done is to improve intellisense to work with it.
Using the WTL is similar to MFC, but without the 1+ MB DLL or static library. It is fast and pretty easy to use if you are very comfortable with C++.
It is not for everyone, but for those that want to program Windows in C++, but not learn a whole new system like .NET.
WTL will pretty much REQUIRE you to understand windows messages and how to use them properly. It is not for the newbie or for those that want a RAD environment.
It has never been supported by Microsoft – it is too small and too much a niche item to be of any concern to them. The main advantage to being open source is that those of us that use it might become more focused to improve it (hope so).
Anyway that is my $0.02. I don’t think there is any big mystery here – just a programmer at Microsoft wanting to get it out for people to use and Microsoft NOT wanting to have something blow up in their face.
David Stidolph
Austin, TX
I don’t see nothing good, WTL is obsolete, would be good 2 years ago, it now, it is useless.
I’d like to remind everybody that “communist” isn’t an insult despite what the US wanted us to think during the eighties…
Considering it has failed just about everywhere it has existed, I’d say that’s an insult. Do you think calling someone a loser is not an insult? Same difference.
The phrase “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” comes to mind.
The corruption is getting too heavy. The way forward is burdensome when nobody believes in it. Money will buy you freedom, except that freedom is evasive. I can’t see how going down the wrong path is good for the world.
Hmmm…. You seem to being equating ethics with money. I guess by your standards the guy from IKEA is the most ethical person in the world and Bill Gates comes in a close second. You are probably _the_ most pompus person I have seen on this site, and I have been hear daily for over a year.
You also seem to equate having money with not being communist. You should tell the Tzars that, that have golden domes on their palaces. Maybe the emporere of China. Or the Saudi princes. If I remember right none of those people got their money through capitalist means.
Microsoft hasn’t commit any crimes against humanity or terrorism like some in previous posts have led people to beleive. It also doesn’t have to pay for it’s crimes unless the GPL gets put into Global Law as the prime doctraine for FOSS indoctrination amoung the world. Then they could put catchy phrases on the FOSS military enforcers. Like resistance is feutile, or don’t close your source code or we will kill you. You know all the standard things that come along with a socialist document.
This conversation is starting to really bore me. I tried to take it to the extreme to show you how stupid this argument is. No body really beleives that the GPL is a solialist document, but it is a good way for us Windows people to push your buttons. It obviously worked, because you are ranting hate speach against Microsoft, hate speach close to what you find in the KKK.
Anyways let go of your hate it isn’t healthy and realize, both industries feed off of each other. You recognize the need for health compitition, but that just doesn’t apply to economics, it aplies to all things. Such as the idea of FOSS, needs to be checked by the idea of Close Source. The Chinese philosophy of the Yin and Yang apply to everything, because with out balance we have nothing. Here is a good example. With out slavery, how would we know what freedom is, or how would be know we actually wanted it and it is something to put your life on the line for? Same thing with Peace and War.
All that I am saying is we need balance, and FOSS provides the balance to Microsoft, just as Microsoft provides the blanace to GPL.
— or —
: I’m not communist, in fact, I have more money than you, unless you are also a millionaire.
I could bring this conversation down to your level. My **** is bigger than yours.
Lets switch industries to make the point clear. A drug company spends 15 years creating a new drug for altimers.
Except if drug patents were issued like software patents, one company would hold a patent on all drugs against headache, regardless of the active ingredient, and another company would hold a patent on all drugs coming in round flat tablets.
COOl, release to the world the stuff you want to get fixed let them do it for you and them charge the rest,,, neat , bill deserves and award for shadiness’
This is great. WTL is a perfect tool for small jobs (although I’ve seen it used for big software also). It is so nice to easily build gui for a tool without sucking in MFC. The only downside to WTL is that documentation is hard to come by, although the code is easy to read and there is a great community of people using it.
For practical purposes, this doesn’t really get us much. Most (all?) of WTL is in a few header files, so we’ve already got the code. I guess the source for the app-wizards might be released.
I think this is a great bit of news (communism/whacko conversation aside).
Nate S.
“Except if drug patents were issued like software patents, one company would hold a patent on all drugs against headache, regardless of the active ingredient, and another company would hold a patent on all drugs coming in round flat tablets.”
You have to know you are over generalizing this. Just like software combinations of atoms are intellectual patents, it is just easier to create software patents, because it is hot now. I am sure I could throw together a bunch of chemical elements and patent it, but there is no way I would even know if anybody is using it. And plus, I could pattent H20, but I doubt any court would enforce it much like the Amazon one click patent.
“You obviously have not clue why patents are in place.”
Your strength lies in your ability to draw unproven, irrelevant conclusions.
You assumed i have a problem with patents at a whole since a part of your post relies on the broad usage of patents. I didn’t meant my earlier statements as a broad generalisation. The first statement is my problem with some incredibly shortsighted people, who seem to be mostly from the USA, ignoring that patents require government regulation. The latter they tend to hate so much about communism/socialist societies, or societies they see like that. It is of minor concern in our discussion. The second statement refers to patent-farms, which requires no futher explanation i guess.
I merely was putting up the premise that patents are enforced by the government and only them; thus it is not according to libertarian/capitalist way. You managed to completely ignore that, and somehow you took my 2nd statement (my first one as well?) out of proportions.
Instead, you rant to me how great the US patent system is, claiming i know jack about it. The arrogance is okay, i can take that. The ignorance here and there is far more disturbing.
However while we’re at it now, i take this oppurtunity to discuss a problem i see in our Information Age, which is called software patents.
“First of all that time a patent is grated for (20 year in US), gives the company time to make backes it’s investment in research. Microsoft spends just as much (billions) in R&D as it does in marketing, do you think they are just doing that out of the goodness of their heart. No, don’t be an idiot, they are doing it to make money.”
Perhaps i wouldn’t care wether they’re able to profit or not from a combination of maths others can just as well do on their own. For me, the right of an individual to develop software without a minefield of possible things humans did earlier -including legal threats- is more important as a common base. We most likely disagree on that, so we have to discuss on such layer first. However even if we won’t agree on that, there’s plenty of specific material to discuss, like patents which have been granted by the US Patent Office.
I could also easily argue the non-existance of patents creates more competition because a company which innovated something easily gets more competitors which means they’ll have to manage to keep up. Also, i haven’t seen proof copyright isn’t defending the R&D’ed IP enough.
Are you also aware that 20 years in the software industry is incredibly long?
“Lets switch industries to make the point clear. A drug company spends 15 years creating a new drug for altimers. A 1/2 billion dollars is spent creating that drug. Now in the 20 years of the patent they have to make back that 1/2 billion dollars plus all the failed projects, so say another 1.5 billion. So in 20 years they have to make back 2 billion dollars on a single drug. Now if it was just released and any smoe with a the capibilies can make the same drug, because there is no pattent law. Innovations suddenly stops, because the drug research companies can no long make a profit, so they can no longer to research, and they can no longer sponser research in the unitiversities.”
I must admit i have not researched non-software patents well. I’m discussing software patents myself here, since that’s the one i’ve researched and the one affecting me. I have no interest in discussing or researching non-software patent examples at the moment.
“It also doesn’t help that patent laws over sea’s are alot more liberal, like the UK has only 7 years. So you know what that means, short patent laws + foreign government regulations = More money being spent by the people with the longer patent laws.”
Far too simple. First of all purely hypothetic: If the (software) patent isn’t artificially protected anymore here, competitors can start to compete with the people who R&Ded the invention. Or, they could now R&D their own (partly) based on the broad invention by the former R&D company since that also happens. Because nowhere does it say one has to copy the exact idea. Copyright already protects that.
So when a (software) patent is not over in the USA while it isn’t in the EU, a company here can use the innovation (or “innovation” since some patents cover such broad or obvious things) to create their own product competing in non-US with the USA company. Note i wrote in non-US. Not in the USA, obviously. Who does that benefit? 2 parties: 1) the EU company is able to compete and build up a business 2) because of more competition in the world -except USA-, scarcity decreases and prices go down. Resume: EU company benefits, indirectly EU economy benefits, world consumers benefit. USA consumers nor USA company does not benefit except for the articifial monopoly they already had. Resume: in short, EU & World benefits; USA does not.
Btw i’m seriously wondering: do you have a problem with competition?
Did you knew that in the country i am from, IT is mostly driven on innovation? Relatively far more than most countries in the world? A lot of R&D is done here. That is -for now- without software patents, my dear friend…
“And actually be intellectually honest, and realize with out patents there would be none of these companies that are now advancing Linux at great pases. IBM, Novell, Sun, etc. all make their money off patents from R&D they have done. And because they can make the profit in the 20 years they are provided in the US, they can thus turn around and sponser up start projects and projects that they don’t get money for like Linux.”
RedHat seems to manage quite well without patents. It is also too easy to say a company has patents; some use it for defense. Can you proof the companies you name used them in legal threats in the past 10 years (i say that because Big Blue used to behave like kids, but they’ve grown up in the 90’s).
“You all have to realize with out patents, and a right to the knowledge that was patented, nobody would bother doing research because the money spent on the research wouldn’t be returned.”
Nobody? At best this is a generalisation. I have seen many unpatented innovations throughout my researches. Also, i’ve seen patent pendings while earlier (alike) implementations already existed. Isn’t it a little bit ridiculous that when
* A creates Z and patent exist done by B, A is the black sheep while when
* B creates Z and innovation exists done by A, B is granted either a patent or it isn’t granted but there was still a threat?
Your premise also raises the question here wether copyright is useless. When i assume your statement is true, i’d say copyright is useless since according to you it doesn’t stimulate knowledge. If that were true, how on earth is all that non-patented, copyrighted Linux software used by commercial entities in their advantage?
“This is one of the basic rules of economics, nobody is going to do the work if they don’t get any kind of payment back. […] Novell […] want money […] stating the obvious”
Duh? There’s no discussing on that, though i’d like to point out that in Europe it ain’t only companies who R&D.
The question -according to me- is rather wether a patent system is a viable way to stimulate the economy, and if yes, in which way. There’s a lot of difference between incredibly broad and very fine-tuned patents; the US patent system allows the former, with which i have major problems with.
Here’s an example of Cisco’s recent claim on a patent. I’m eager to know your opinion!
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20040512012809
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3085
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/05/12/0039242.shtml
Here’s a picture which describes a number of 20 patents which are existing in the USA granted by your praised US Patent Office.
http://webshop.ffii.org
I’m wondering wether you still think such basic, broad, obvious things should be patented or wether we are more on 1 line and agree that some software patents are ridiculous while we still disagree on the use of software patents in our Information Age.
“To leave you with my last thought. One thing that I have learned is “Nobody does anything for free!” They always hope for a return, many of these projects, such as Samaba and if my history isn’t evading me Linux, were start up projects as a way to get a masters degree. (So they weren’t doing it for free, the project had a non-monitary value)”
To leave you with my last thought: there are 2 types of people on this world
* Stupid, greedy egoists who only think about themselves and search maximal gain for only themselves.
* Smarter, less greedy egoists who share goods with others in an effort to gain something from them back.
(Thanks to Han.)
You have to know you are over generalizing this.
I wish I were. What would you think of a patent on using state abbreviation codes in URLs, for example ‘osnews-wy.com’ for the Wyoming edition of OSNews?
A patent along this lines does exist in Europe (luckily it is being contested in court with some success).
:: I wish I were. What would you think of a patent on
:: using state abbreviation codes in URLs, for
:: example ‘osnews-wy.com’ for the Wyoming edition of
:: OSNews?
Well the example you gave really doesn’t fall under intellectual design and I agree that is stupid. However I don’t agree that Microsoft getting a patent for a complicated protocol or piece of software that they spent billions of dollars on is rediculas.
Like I said if Han actually read my post more than one sentance is that I only agree with the intellectual patents that help companies regain their R&D budget. A patent for a domain name or one click shopping is just stupid, and you have to trust that courts are going to see it that way. Too many people equate patents with FREE MONEY, which they are by no means. They cost a lot even after it has been approved, lawyer and etc.
Also if Europe lets you patent a domain name that is really stupid and it beats some of the US one click pattents that I have see in undder stupidity. Domain names are trademarks and copyrightable, they don’t deserve a patent.
Microsoft is not releasing WTL Source Code, since it’s already avaliable in source mode (there’s no DLLs in WTL, it’s just some C++ headers and a VC++ wizard). Microsoft is changing the license mode, so other developers can contibute. Today, WTL is maintened only by Nenad Stefanovic, a Microsoft developer.
2xExplorer, one of the best freeware explorer replacements is written using this code and is VERY lightweight.
http://netez.com/2xExplorer/