Use MFC in....

[himuskanhere]

:cool:Whats the difference between Use Mfc in Static Library and Use Mfc in Shared Dll. what is achieved after specifing either of thses two? Thanks in advance.... :cool:

[nbugalia]

The shared dll option will use the existing mfc dlls on the machine on which execution is going on. If you don't have the dlls it wont' execute. The static library option will attach the code of mfc dlls in you executable so you will not need the dlls. But the drawback of static linking is that the overall size of executable will be increased.

[Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer]

While the static library name may be hard to understand, the "shared dll" bit should be easier! An EXE is the program you're running. It can also use DLLs, which other EXEs can use - hence shared DLLs. If you're struggling with that idea, then this is not the right forum for you. In this case, your program will reference the MFC DLL(s). This could be MFC42U.dll for example. But this may or may not be on a system, so you'd need to put it there - and what if a bad person overwrites it? And is it will contain every MFC class and code, it will be quite large. The alternative is to link all the MFC functions into your EXE. It will now be larger than before, but more selfcontained. And not as large as the EXE and DLL were before. Which you use is heaviliy dependent on other conditions. Ease of install, whether the DLLs already exist on the system (which is a given with older versions of MFC). Will this be downloaded over a slow internet connection? etc. There is no black or white, good or bad answer. Welcome to programming - land of compromises and cost-benefit analysis. Iain.

[ddspliting]

i would use shared DLL usually but the main problem which i faced as an AMATUER programmer was tht my program wont run on my friend system! so static DLL helped me out! though the size of the exe incresed to few MBytes but atleast i got STANDALONE application ;P