API vs Framework Programming

So, I fresh installed Ubuntu on a Win7 machine. Thinking, "Hey, Linux, there's a fresh idea to get away from shitty framework after shitty framework." Figured I'd try it out before I abandoned Windows on the side of the road like the spent whore she is.

The install was a cake walk. Started browsing around all these options for compilers, IDE's, and the like. Then started looking up API calls for basic programs (ie. createwindow, msgbox, windows API variants). WTF, people. Has Linux gone the way of MegaShaft Windoze. Hey check out Qt.. check out Gtk. Don't call APIs directly and know what the fuck your doing... no no no. Use this shitty framework with limited options so that your not spending anytime actually learning the system. Point... click... and bloat out your applications with a classes you probably don't even need, because your not going to use all of them.

Seriously people? Is it that programmers are too afraid to call what they need directly?

Don't get me wrong... I can see how having a framework sit around adjusting button sizes and window panels for you could, in fact, be convenient. However, past having something work out the UI for you, that still doesn't excuses programmers that actively make a point to not know wtf it is they're actually doing, what goes into their compiled code, determining the optimization of said code by a framework instead of a compiler and common fucking sense.

Oh yeah... before I forget:
inb4 "you don't understand _________ framework"
inb4 "try out __________ framework, it's easy"
inb4 "why the fuck wouldn't you use a framework" <---- since that dumbass didn't read the orig. post

Do you create your Windows® controls from scratch?

Yes actually, they wind up being much faster and smaller than normal because I don't have to code in shit that I don't need events for.

So you're complaining that there are frameworks available?  It offends you that other people like to use them?  Or are you too stupid to do without one and offended that you're going to end up joining them?

http://www.x.org/docs/X11/xlib.pdf

Have fun.

>>4

come back in 2~3 posts, try trolling harder... we'll talk.

>>5

Dude, see.. you fucking rock.

>>4

Someone's jelly there's people out there that don't need a framework.

>>1
>>8

sage your shit.

>>5
Why are there so much Japanese people in the acknowledgements? XLib is now officially weeaboo shit.

It's not dumb to learn the API, but it is hubris to think that all existing frameworks are bad, and didn't make decisions based on common use that you will probably encounter and struggle through foolishly.

I see this argument on here infrequently against js frameworks like jQuery, when jQuery is more than worth its filesize in gold.

>>10

So if someone says X11, then it's okay?

>>12
The X11 protocol is great. XLib is of very questionable quality.

>>11

Q) What is, EVERY, Framework built upon?
A) Pre-existing API.

I wonder if behind every unintelligent person there are unintelligent parents.

>>15
I don't know. There are no unintelligent people here.

>>16
I regard ``complete retards'', ``utter morons'' and ``fucking idiots'' as unintelligent.

>>14
And every mammal is made up of organs and blood cells. Your point?

>>17

I maintain the base ability to read, being needed. Beyond that the near constant trolling that goes on... a bit trite.

>>18

LOL. So what your saying is that everything has to come pre-packaged and "NO ONE" can play with the raw building blocks?

>>18

Every square is a rectangle, not every rectangle is a square. Your Point?

I never said that >>20, and please don't get your hierarchy confused >>21.

All I did was reiterate that yes, a framework is built on a pre-existing API. That's a fact, not an argument.

>>22

So... your point is that framework developers can work with API directly, so they can make class structures and object libraries... but not the OP?

>>23

I'm thinking anon-22 doesn't want anyone programming with API beyond framework developers... he's mad.

>>22

Why you so mad?

>>23
...No, that's not even close to what I said. It's almost as if you didn't read the post you just referenced.

OP can't inb4

>>26

So people... can, use API directly? Without you getting mad?

>>27

I believe... I did. Yeah.. yeah... I did.

>>26

Then why you so mad?

>>OP
>>29

Haters gonna hate.
True Story.

>>30

Yeah, your prolly right. Some people do want other people ignorant, and they hate you if your not.

Lots of imageboard crusading in this thread. "Jokes on him I was just pretending to be retarded", etc. If all you really want to do is fuqin anger an expert, it takes more effort than that.

See... >>32 is obviously an expert, he says so himself... that means no one, at all, ever in their life can program with API directly. No Exceptions.

>>32

Your 100% right, API programming is stupid. And only fucktards don't auto-use whatever Framework they're told about first.

>>32 your doing most of it... "expert".

>>32 is an expert... which is why he's trolling... seems legit.

>>OP

I told you. Haters gonna hate. No exceptions.

That 32 anon should come back in here and rage more over people using API instead of framework. Wait a sec:


#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <X11/Xlib.h>
#include <X11/Xutil.h>
#include <X11/Xos.h>
#include <X11/Xatom.h>
#include <X11/keysym.h>

Display *dis;
Window win;
XEvent report;
GC green_gc;
XColor green_col;
Colormap colormap;

char green[] = "#00FF00";

int main() {
    dis = XOpenDisplay(NULL);
    win = XCreateSimpleWindow(dis, RootWindow(dis, 0), 1, 1, 500, 500, 0, BlackPixel (dis, 0), BlackPixel(dis, 0));
    XMapWindow(dis, win);
    colormap = DefaultColormap(dis, 0);
    green_gc = XCreateGC(dis, win, 0, 0);
    XParseColor(dis, colormap, green, &green_col);
    XAllocColor(dis, colormap, &green_col);
    XSetForeground(dis, green_gc, green_col.pixel);

    XSelectInput(dis, win, ExposureMask | KeyPressMask | ButtonPressMask);
   
    XDrawRectangle(dis, win, green_gc, 1, 1, 497, 497);
    XDrawRectangle(dis, win, green_gc, 50, 50, 398, 398);
    XFlush(dis);

    while (1)  {
    XNextEvent(dis, &report);
        switch  (report.type) {
        case Expose:  
               fprintf(stdout, "I have been exposed.\n");
                XDrawRectangle(dis, win, green_gc, 1, 1, 497, 497);
                XDrawRectangle(dis, win, green_gc, 50, 50, 398, 398);
                XFlush(dis);
            break;
             case KeyPress:
                if (XLookupKeysym(&report.xkey, 0) == XK_q) {
                exit(0);
                }
            break;
        }
    }

return 0;
}


there, that should really piss him off.

>>38

LOL.

Wait a sec. Wat?

If you program in API then your going to have to spend waaaayyyy longer to develop your code. Developing even the basis of a GUI for any given application becomes an issue, the life-cycle of a project gets completely blown, and you actually lose components as most application components aren't pre-made. Beyond that, you made porting your code over to other platforms a nightmare. API programming is fine and all, but in Qt I can still do API programming and Qt doesn't bloat out any of my programs at all.

Qt doesn't bloat out any of my programs at all.

.... /facepalm

>>1-41
Shut the fuck up you fucking spammer moron.

>>42

y u mad?

>>1,3,6-8,14,19-21,23-25,28-31,33-39
SPAWHBTC.

Fuck off back to /b/ and take your tripcode and your ``u mad''s with you.

>>38
fucking globals!

>>38
also, y u use fprintf? NO FRAMEWORKS ALLOWED!

>>44

I feel really tempted to ask, y u mad?

Is it really that difficult for people to ``sage"?

>>48
i don't normally sage threads, but when i do its when i find a particularly shitty thread.( Like this one.)

Holly fucking shit. >>38 was right. >>44 , you did come back more pissed off. That's kinda epic on >>38's part.

I always viewed frameworks as a matter of convenience. One would normally use frameworks unless one has a good reason to use more primitive API.

>>51
To be specific, I use API to create custom controls. Past that, I get much better control over my user interface, and the addition of increased program speed. For instance (like I said, I just came from windoze):

In Visual C++ .NET: A blank app, with just a single window normally hits around 13Kb compiled, and runs @ 2612 ms.

In Visual C++: 7.9Kb @ 1266 ms

In GNU C++: 3.2Kb @ 399 ms

A single button increases all that; however, when you make your own controls you can leave out any thing you already know you don't need.

>>52
Wow you sound just like FV. Hey guys, we have the successor to In Lisp.

>>53
Lisp... oh god no. No offense to Lisp programmers... but I'm a C/C++ guy.

Okay... I'm in agreement that OP is kinda a douche about what he's talking about. But reading this thread has me curious.

Why is API programming bad?

>>55
Don't fan the flames. API Programming is what you do because you can't get a job, and have the time off to play around with caveman code. No real consumer based applications call API directly. No real programmer in the MODERN age does without a framework. The OP was smart to get away from .NET but that's as far as it goes.

>>56

+1 for avoiding the question.
+1 for rage.
-100 for the .NET hate.

I love my .NET, I'm still wondering though, why is API programming bad. I mean, so far I've heard that it speeds up your dev time. But that's it.

>>57 You obviously don't know enough about your own OS. The very reason you don't have access to API is because it's so primitive. That faggish .NET you love so much is the only thing keeping you programming.

>>55,58
Not so.. I recently did a project that used raw sockets. In .NET you don't have access to raw sockets anymore. You have to use API calls and build the packets yourself. So yeah. Using API directly gives you more options than using a Framework. And as I recall the same is true in Qt as well.

>>58
You do realie the MSDN library gives examples on how to call each function through API, right?

>>50
I'm actually >>5,44 and that's it, I'm not that other guy.