Possible project? the Great GDI+ Demystification & Documentation Project

[NoCforMe]

There's been a lot of interest in, and a lot of postings about GDI+ recently here, which is good.

The thing we all realize we're up against here is the paucity, and the poor quality, of documentation for this very useful interface. (Referring to the GDI+ flat API, where all the functions are extracted from all that overloaded C++ nonsense.)

There are bits and pieces all over the Intertubes, of course. But there's no one reference or tutorial or other documentation that gives the poor puzzled programmer who's starting to work with this API a clue as to how use it.

Maybe we could be the ones to come up with that.
It'd be a lot of work, of course, but it also could be kinda fun.

Even though it's now, what? almost two decades old, it's still a great collection of code, much richer and more flexible than its GDI predecessor. So very much worth keeping alive, I think.

Along with this there should be an effort to fill out our own MASM32 support for GDI+, which is only partial. The bulk of the work as been done, with prototypes and library support for (I believe) all of the 600 or so functions, but there's plenty missing: structures, constants and "enumerations". All this information is available, so it's just a matter of translation.

Anyhow, I wanted to throw this out there to see what other members think of it.

[zedd151]

With all of the interest lately, maybe we need a subforum just for gdiplus aka GDI+ (I hate all caps like that, seems DOSsy)? 

[guga]

With all of the interest lately, maybe we need a subforum just for gdiplus? 

That would be nice and needed.

[zedd151]

With all of the interest lately, maybe we need a subforum just for gdiplus? 

That would be nice and needed.

Yes, reason being that a single topic would become very cluttered, and not easy to find a particular post (for code or information). Hailing stoo23...    ... we have a teeny tiny request, please.

Plus with a dedicated subforum, maybe just maybe, we will get more contributors to the body of knowledge about gdiplus.

With one caveat, maybe only trusted information (from reliable sources) and working code should be posted there. Not experimental code or debugging sessions, unless the topic title says debugging or experiment in the title, or other descriptor etc ...

[NoCforMe]

With one caveat, maybe only trusted information (from reliable sources) and working code should be posted there. Not experimental code or debugging sessions, unless the topic title says debugging or experiment in the title, or other descriptor etc ...

Welll, I wouldn't go that far: the usual forum discussion flow should reveal out any erroneous info or flawed techniques. In fact, that's one of the most valuable sources of information, showing what doesn't work.

Anyhow, yes, let's create a subforum. Could be below this one, since it is a Windows API, but would that be burying it too deeply? Maybe it should be a top-level subforum.

[zedd151]

With one caveat, maybe only trusted information (from reliable sources) and working code should be posted there. Not experimental code or debugging sessions, unless the topic title says debugging or experiment in the title, or other descriptor etc ...

Welll, I wouldn't go that far: the usual forum discussion flow should reveal out any erroneous info or flawed techniques. In fact, that's one of the most valuable sources of information, showing what doesn't work.

Anyhow, yes, let's create a subforum. Could be below this one, since it is a Windows API, but would that be burying it too deeply? Maybe it should be a top-level subforum.

I have already taken the liberty to make such a request... 

Point taken, re what's erroneous or doesn't work.

[NoCforMe]

So I ASS-U-ME you're going with a top-level subforum?

[zedd151]

So I ASS-U-ME you're going with a top-level subforum?

Of course, I suggested it. Didn't I?
The more members we can get on board the more likely it may happen.

Oh top level, I don't know about that. But I did suggest a dedicated subforum.

I gotta go, the puppy dogs are getting anxious...

[sinsi]

I disagree, it's a very small part of the Windows API. I also reckon that after the rush of "ooh, I found out this" that it will wither and die. just like the idea of an in-depth guide to interfaces, or how to set up VS for MASM

Updating the MASM32 SDK to use the Windows API post-2003 would be better (I would mention the MASM64 SDK but that is dead)

[fearless]

Here is a link to José Roca GDI+ chm help file: https://museum2023.it-berater.org/index.php?topic=4427.0 - which is useful for offline reference.

[zedd151]

I disagree, it's a very small part of the Windows API. I also reckon that after the rush of "ooh, I found out this" that it will wither and die.

Gee, what a buzz kill. 

I was already thinking about calling it Windows Graphics instead or some similar variation.

It could then include gdi, gdi plus, and even direct draw (for those so inclined), or any other drawing related API's. (Like msimg32.dll - which has TransparentBlt, and who knows what else...)

It could them be a sub forum of Game Development perhaps? Or the Workshop?

[sinsi]

Gee, what a buzz kill. 

Sorry that my opinion is different to yours 

Anyhow, I wanted to throw this out there to see what other members think of it.

Select members only, according to some

[zedd151]

Select members only...

Yes, only for members interested in creating and working with graphics for Windows. 
What is there not to like about that? 

[NoCforMe]

Gee, what a buzz kill. 

Sorry that my opinion is different to yours 

Anyhow, I wanted to throw this out there to see what other members think of it.

Select members only, according to some

Really? Seriously?
Isn't it a bit early to start casting snark here?
(Besides, that's my job.)

But seriously: I'd think it would be clear that "other members" means those members who show enough interest in the subject to involve themselves in this.

Maybe GDI+ is kind of a specialty thing, as you seem to think. Still viable and used by a lot of people.

In fact, the demystification and documentation project I had in mind could be of use not only to assembly-language programmers but to those who code in any language and want to use the flat API.

[zedd151]

A compromise would be to call it "graphics programming" or similar. That could include more than just gdiplus. 

I still think it would be worthwhile to have a subforum dedicated to graphics related programming, it doesn't necessarily have to be only for gdiplus.