Re: why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- From: "Mark Randall" <markyr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:12:47 +0100
Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've had enough trouble convincing clients that MFC and C++ are
> state-of-the art (to the
> last one who was reluctant to accept this new, daring technology, in 1998,
> I basically
> said, "It will cost you k dollars and n months to product this in MFC. It
> will cost you
> 4*k dollars and 2*n months to produce it in C. Part of the reason for the
> cost change is
> that my hourly rate doubles to compensate me for pain and suffering". We
> did the project
> in n/2 months at 0.8k dollars, and they now believe). But I would not dare
> propose
> something that was apparently undocumented, difficult to learn, and
> difficult to extend;
> they have to live with this stuff for years.
The unfortunate issue with MFC as of late is having to seemingly supply the
MFC 7.0, 7.1 and 8.0 DLL's respectivly for seemingly every project for
people who do not have .NET installed. 7.1 and 8.0 are to be particular
pains in the arse for people not having them, even on XP Pro machines.
--
- Mark Randall
http://zetech.swehli.com
.
- References:
- why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- From: Huang Shu Huai
- Re: why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- From: Daniel James
- Re: why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- Prev by Date: Re: Font Size and Type in Dialog / App
- Next by Date: Re: How can I get the current selected item from CTreeCtrl class?
- Previous by thread: Re: why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- Next by thread: Re: why microsoft choose mfc rather than wtl?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|