Re: MFC future?
- From: "Mike Goldweber" <mikegoldweber@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:24:38 -0800
So, what is the best way to produce dialog based apps using a C++
language? My last job used Borland Builder to produce dialogs, and
that was great fun. I'm relatively new to building gui's with MFC, but
after reading some of the comments here, I'm not so sure this is a good
use of my time? My new company just converted to Visual Studio .Net
2003. If this set of tools has a better method of making user
interfaces, I'm all of devoting my time to learning that.
Any suggestions please?
Thanks,
Mike
David Ching wrote:
>
> "Tom Serface" <tserface@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:uSvIfn19FHA.3980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > This is just another illustration of the mixed message MSFT is
> > sending to the community. Over the last few years they have
> > managed to make C# look "cool" and "productive" and MFC (and C++)
> > look "dated" and "unhip". I don't know if this is intentional or
> > not (I suspect it's just one group doing a better marketing job),
> > but I can understand how some feel the need to wonder. Even if
> > MFC was never improved it is still a great tool for certain types
> > of applications, but I can certainly understand how people who
> > invest their time in a coding paradigm would want to feel like they
> > are doing something worth their while. These days we all,
> > especially the younger guys, want our resumes to say the right
> > things.
> >
>
> The messages from MSFT are slightly different for C++ as for MFC.
> Certain groups within MSFT (perhaps the VC++ team?) are positioning
> C++ as the new premier language for developing .NET apps. They say
> you can do things in C++ that you can't do even in C#. And this is
> true. C# lacks the concept of deterministic finalization, and it is
> built into C++. And C++ has better optimizations than C#. Finally,
> C++ is the only language that can mix and match native code with
> managed code with ease. VC++ 2005 has a whole new syntax that
> replaces the previous managed extensions, that makes it much easier
> to do this. And VC++ 2005 now can build WinForms apps. I'm taking
> advantage of this to learn the .NET framework with C++ and not have
> to learn C# at the same time. C# has some nice things in it, but
> things like lack of default parameters bug me.
>
> Now for MFC. AFAIK, MS is pretty mum these days about MFC. They
> haven't extended it very much at all in VS2005. But they claim
> they've made more bug fixes this time than in any previous release.
> I think they realize people are going to keep using it, and for
> security's sake, they'd better give them the best possible security
> experience. What they have done is make it possible to host .NET
> forms in an MFC app, and MFC windows in a .NET app. So they have a
> pretty good story for those who would like to extend their existing
> app to use .NET UI. And that's a good thing, because the new
> XAML-based UI's in Vista will only be available to .NET apps. The
> XAML apps I've seen are so much better looking, it makes MFC doc/view
> look like text terminals from 20 years ago. But just like then,
> there will still be mission-critical apps that have the old UI.
>
> Cheeers,
> David
> http://www.dcsoft.com
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MFC future?
- From: Daniel James
- Re: MFC future?
- From: David Ching
- Re: MFC future?
- References:
- MFC future?
- From: NewbProgrammer
- Re: MFC future?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: MFC future?
- From: Tom Serface
- Re: MFC future?
- From: David Ching
- MFC future?
- Prev by Date: Re: Comm Ports 10+
- Next by Date: Re: Making an App wait 3 minutes without using sleep() function...
- Previous by thread: Re: MFC future?
- Next by thread: Re: MFC future?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
