Member Avatar for JoBe

Hi ladies and gents,

Wanted to ask a simple question probably for you guys and the answer will maybe be simple aswell, but, I thought, what the heck, I'll go for it :)

It just seems strange that when everyone tells to use <iostream> instead of <iostream.h>, <cstdlib> instead of <stdlib.h>, etc... that this is not the case for <windows.h> ?

Is there a particular reason for this?

I know it's not really important, but, I really am curious as to know what is the reason for not changing this.

Thanks.

  • 4 Contributors
  • 8 Replies
  • 343 Views
  • 1 Year Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by Ancient Dragon
Member Avatar for Salem

Because windows.h isn't part of either standard.

The standards committees can only decide what the standard header files should be called.

Member Avatar for JoBe

Thanks Salem, but if it doesn't belong to either standard, too what does it belong then?

Member Avatar for Salem

Well it's specific to win32 windows machines.

A near equivalent for say unix would be unistd.h

Other operating systems have their own header files.

Member Avatar for Ancient Dragon

also, windows.h doesn't define any c++ classes -- pure C, although you can use in in c++ programs. If the .h extension really bothers you then you could create your own file without the extension and have it call windows.h

Member Avatar for JoBe

Oh, I get it now, this means that when I or anyone else use <windows.h> it wouldn't be portable to any other type of OS.

Then, what would you use in replacement of <windows.h> so you could write code and use it on different OS?

It wasn't about being bothersome AD, I was just curious as to why it still had an .h extension while other headers in C++ don't use .h extensions anymore.

Thanks for the explanation guys.

Member Avatar for Ancient Dragon

Then, what would you use in replacement of <windows.h> so you could write code and use it on different OS?

depends on the operating system. There are libraries that are pretty much portable between *nix, MS-Windows, and (I think) MAC, for example QT.

Member Avatar for rje7

depends on the operating system. There are libraries that are pretty much portable between *nix, MS-Windows, and (I think) MAC, for example QT.

are the programs created using the windows port ofQT portable?

Member Avatar for Ancient Dragon

Yes because they will contain no windows-specific function calls. You should be able to port it to *nix version of QT without any code changes, assuming you did not make any os-specific function calls outside what QT gives you.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.