MFC's future
-
"Read the book that had the desparado author fleeing the country, one step ahead of the byte patrol" "Banned in Utah" "Shipped in plain brown wrapper for your discretion" ------------
John Cardinal wrote: desparado author fleeing the country :-D Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Desktop developers have no use for .NET. Uhm, I take it that you have never taken a proper look at the .NET BCL. If you had then you probably wouldn't be saying this Jim. Remember, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to use MFC while also taking advantage of the BCL. Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
Nishant S wrote: Uhm, I take it that you have never taken a proper look at the .NET BCL. If you had then you probably wouldn't be saying this Jim. Remember, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to use MFC while also taking advantage of the BCL. Well, no, I haven't. Interesting; I've heard of CLR, but not BCL. But, see, here's why desktop developers aren't interested in .NET: 1) It's geared primarily towards Web development. 2) It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. 3) It's not geared towards performance: it's geared towards Jave-like performance, via C#. No, I can't work on .NET while working on MFC apps. Why? No time to learn! Writing good code takes time. Even after 20 years in this biz, the last 12 doing C++ exclusively, I still have tons to learn about C++. Why waste time learning yet here another today, gone tomorrow Microsoft technology?
-
With an exception of Crypto/Imaging -- everything else looks like implemeted already either in STL/MFC -- majority looks like just wrappers to COM Objects (speech/ado/system diag)... But again for Crypto -- CryptoAPI... Imaging -- GDI++... "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
igor1960 wrote: looks like just wrappers to COM Objects Yup, the BCL provides classes that wrap the various COM objects and the Win32 API. So why not use the classes? Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
Nothng that can replace MFC yet exists. Desktop developers have no use for .NET. Apparently a large number of programmers refuse to upgrade to VS.NET becasue of its bizarre interface; I wish I could go back. As long as Windows is around, MFC will be the dominant programming library.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Desktop developers have no use for .NET. :rolleyes: :confused: I'm doing some desktop apps in .NET and really liking the ease and power available in .NET. Only thing is, there aren't as many controls for .NET as I'd like to see. (Don't worry, we're fixing that. ;) )
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
Nishant S wrote: Uhm, I take it that you have never taken a proper look at the .NET BCL. If you had then you probably wouldn't be saying this Jim. Remember, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to use MFC while also taking advantage of the BCL. Well, no, I haven't. Interesting; I've heard of CLR, but not BCL. But, see, here's why desktop developers aren't interested in .NET: 1) It's geared primarily towards Web development. 2) It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. 3) It's not geared towards performance: it's geared towards Jave-like performance, via C#. No, I can't work on .NET while working on MFC apps. Why? No time to learn! Writing good code takes time. Even after 20 years in this biz, the last 12 doing C++ exclusively, I still have tons to learn about C++. Why waste time learning yet here another today, gone tomorrow Microsoft technology?
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Well, no, I haven't. Interesting; I've heard of CLR, but not BCL. Base Class Library (the huge collection of .NET framework classes) Jim A. Johnson wrote: 1) It's geared primarily towards Web development. :confused: Not really. There are so many useful classes that have nothing to do with web at all. Jim A. Johnson wrote: 2) It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. Future versions of Windows will have it by default. Jim A. Johnson wrote: 3) It's not geared towards performance: it's geared towards Jave-like performance, via C#. C# is just a language/compiler for the .NET framework. .NET might be slower than native code but in business apps when has performance been the primary issue? There are far too many other bottlenecks like network speed, data base access etc. that the slowness due to a JIT compilation wont even be noticeable. It's not as if anyone is gonna write a high speed compiler using managed code Jim A. Johnson wrote: No, I can't work on .NET while working on MFC apps. Why? No time to learn! Writing good code takes time Uhm, Tom Archer and I are writing a book targetted at MFC devs that talks about how to integrate MFC and .NET without givin up on MFC :-) Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
MFC is dead. Microsoft want you to use C#, so VB and MFC will become poor second cousins to C# sooner rather than later. Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
Christian Graus wrote: so VB and MFC will become poor second cousins to C# sooner rather than later. Unless some of the existing MFC devs give up their egos ;-) and decide to use Managed C++ to mix MFC with the .NET BCL :-) Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
Nishant S wrote: Uhm, I take it that you have never taken a proper look at the .NET BCL. If you had then you probably wouldn't be saying this Jim. Remember, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to use MFC while also taking advantage of the BCL. Well, no, I haven't. Interesting; I've heard of CLR, but not BCL. But, see, here's why desktop developers aren't interested in .NET: 1) It's geared primarily towards Web development. 2) It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. 3) It's not geared towards performance: it's geared towards Jave-like performance, via C#. No, I can't work on .NET while working on MFC apps. Why? No time to learn! Writing good code takes time. Even after 20 years in this biz, the last 12 doing C++ exclusively, I still have tons to learn about C++. Why waste time learning yet here another today, gone tomorrow Microsoft technology?
Jim A. Johnson wrote: It's geared primarily towards Web development. You'd be surprised. Yes, it has a lot for Web dev, but it also has excellent support for the desktop. Jim A. Johnson wrote: It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. That 10 meg+ DLL is partly the large BCL. Jim A. Johnson wrote: 3) It's not geared towards performance: it's geared towards Jave-like performance, via C#. That is a problem, but not too much of one. They're going to be working on optimizations in future releases. Jim A. Johnson wrote: No, I can't work on .NET while working on MFC apps. Why? No time to learn! Writing good code takes time. Even after 20 years in this biz, the last 12 doing C++ exclusively, I still have tons to learn about C++. If you like MFC, and don't have time to learn C#, that's fine - go ahead and use it. :) However, don't knock .NET if you don't know much about it. :| MFC is very good for desktop apps, and so is .NET.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
igor1960 wrote: looks like just wrappers to COM Objects Yup, the BCL provides classes that wrap the various COM objects and the Win32 API. So why not use the classes? Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
Sure, why not? If you are not concerned with memory footprint as well as .NET deployment is not an issue -- sure it can and probably should be used... I'm just against that crowd that already rendered MFC/ATL/COM as dead. Yes, sure CLR and only CLR is the bright future! LOL... "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
-
Sure, why not? If you are not concerned with memory footprint as well as .NET deployment is not an issue -- sure it can and probably should be used... I'm just against that crowd that already rendered MFC/ATL/COM as dead. Yes, sure CLR and only CLR is the bright future! LOL... "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
igor1960 wrote: If you are not concerned with memory footprint The .NET BCL was developed by people at MS just as they did develop MFC and ATL. What makes you think that they must have got it wrong this time? If the BCL has a memory footprint then so does MFC. igor1960 wrote: MFC/ATL/COM as dead Not dead, but surely dying a slow relaxed death. igor1960 wrote: sure CLR and only CLR is the bright future! LOL... While you were probably joking, it is ironic that there is a lot of truth in your joke. The future might not be the CLR as we know it now, but for sure one of it's great grand children will rule the development world a few decades from now. Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
igor1960 wrote: If you are not concerned with memory footprint The .NET BCL was developed by people at MS just as they did develop MFC and ATL. What makes you think that they must have got it wrong this time? If the BCL has a memory footprint then so does MFC. igor1960 wrote: MFC/ATL/COM as dead Not dead, but surely dying a slow relaxed death. igor1960 wrote: sure CLR and only CLR is the bright future! LOL... While you were probably joking, it is ironic that there is a lot of truth in your joke. The future might not be the CLR as we know it now, but for sure one of it's great grand children will rule the development world a few decades from now. Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
The .NET BCL was developed by people at MS just as they did develop MFC and ATL. What makes you think that they must have got it wrong this time? If the BCL has a memory footprint then so does MFC. I'm confused here: I though BCL/FCL is part of .NET Framework and CLR will be loaded? Maybe we are talking about different things, but I meant memory footprint and other overhead... While you were probably joking, it is ironic that there is a lot of truth in your joke. The future might not be the CLR as we know it now, but for sure one of it's great grand children will rule the development world a few decades from now Sure, world is constant progress... "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
-
I think without MS behind it, a slight breeze could kill MFC. :rolleyes: If I were just learning to program now, would I try to learn MFC? No sooner than I'd try to learn COBOL. MFC-only coders will live on for years in maintenance roles and in their own projects, but unless MS puts some serious muscle into updating it, it'll soon lose all appeal for new projects.
Shog9
Let your mercy spill / On all these burning hearts in hell If it be your will / To make us well...
Shog9 wrote: MFC-only coders will live on for years in maintenance roles and in their own projects, *looks at resume, notices no .NET-related technologies listed* Aww CRAP! ;P I prefer to wear gloves when using it, but that's merely a matter of personal hygiene [Roger Wright on VB] Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. [Rich Cook]
-
MFC will become the equivalent of those old classes we used to use for "windowing" in dos programs within the next 7-10 years. There's too much legacy code to see it die rapidly, but I suspect that it's going to fade away. I'm fully into .net now and couldn't see any reason to MFC for business application development. Maybe little utilities, etc, but then again those are usually ideal console apps so who can say. The real kicker is when .net is standard on every PC. At that point who wouldn't use it for little utilities etc when it compiles to a tiny 5k program. I'm amazed when a fairly sophisticated business app compiles to only 100kb in total for .net. It's great that way. Either way, I don't think .net can be put in the "fad" category at this point, I had my doubts a year ago, but it's very slick, works well, makes sense from every aspect for working class programming of business apps. MFC is just loaded with too much crap that it has accumulated over the years from win 3 days to now and it's become so byzantine and archaic by modern standards that it just has to collapse eventually under it's own weight. ------------
And the funy thing that the highly paid and the most valuable people working in my organization are the ones who back 15-20 years ago wrote some proprietary server stuff on very popular and cutting edge back then VAX/VMS... using Pascal!!! Gues what -- they are still in charge... The real kicker is when .net is standard on every PC. At that point who wouldn't use it for little utilities etc when it compiles to a tiny 5k program. I'm amazed when a fairly sophisticated business app compiles to only 100kb in total for .net. It's great that way. Sure, however I was waiting for MFC4 to appear on every PC for 6 years now. Looks like it happened!... That's why alot of MFC guys are not in a hurry to move to VC7 -- wait another 6 years for MFC7 to be deployed?! 100KB business applcation? How much resources are in it? Or maybe resources under .NET became smaller? "Hello world" -- 12 bytes --> that's how large your ideal EXE should be, assuming Notepad is installed? How large is CLR man?... Check this out if haven't done yet... Also, check your IE size that suppose to deploy your 100k EXE... MFC is just loaded with too much crap that it has accumulated over the years from win 3 days to now and it's become so byzantine and archaic by modern standards that it just has to collapse eventually under it's own weight. So, 12MB CLR is not crap and is absolutely used by your 100kb business application? Mine MFC app with a crap could sit amazingly on 1.2mb diskette (including MFC BTW)... "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
-
Nishant S wrote: Uhm, I take it that you have never taken a proper look at the .NET BCL. If you had then you probably wouldn't be saying this Jim. Remember, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to use MFC while also taking advantage of the BCL. Well, no, I haven't. Interesting; I've heard of CLR, but not BCL. But, see, here's why desktop developers aren't interested in .NET: 1) It's geared primarily towards Web development. 2) It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. 3) It's not geared towards performance: it's geared towards Jave-like performance, via C#. No, I can't work on .NET while working on MFC apps. Why? No time to learn! Writing good code takes time. Even after 20 years in this biz, the last 12 doing C++ exclusively, I still have tons to learn about C++. Why waste time learning yet here another today, gone tomorrow Microsoft technology?
Jim A. Johnson wrote: 2) It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. This is what stops me from using .Net presently. According to my site stats, close to 50% of the people are still using Windows 98. (I get more hits from Mac and Linux users than WinME users! hehe) I don't think it would go over too well with alot of users if my setup package jumped from 4MB to 15ishMB. (As more people start using highspeed, it should also become more feasible to use .Net.) At any rate, I plan on learning .Net in the background on small projects, (so far I find it excellent) but I think it's going to take some time before it becomes the "mainstream thing". XP was released in 2001, and still only 30-35% of windows users are actually using it. How long is it going to take before a majority are using a version of Windows that comes with .Net pre-installed?
My 20 favorite films:
http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=8912 -
The whole point is that, if .NET actually does kill MFC, then it probably just establishes the fact that .NET must have actually got to a stage where programmers find it much more powerful and easy to use than MFC ever was. The old must make way for the young. It's been like that since Adam first saw Eve without the leaves... Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
Nishant S wrote: The old must make way for the young. It's been like that since Adam first saw Eve without the leaves... I love the bible. It is R-rated all over the place, especially the Old Testament, but it's written in subtle way so that kids and naive adults will complete miss it the sexual aspect and can pass for PG. Wes
-
John Cardinal wrote: desparado author fleeing the country :-D Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
sorry for asking: but what does the 'S' stand for.. you call yourself nishant s. never figured out what the s means.
"I'm from the South Bronx, and I don't care what you say: those cows look dangerous."
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at George Bush's ranch in Texas -
sorry for asking: but what does the 'S' stand for.. you call yourself nishant s. never figured out what the s means.
"I'm from the South Bronx, and I don't care what you say: those cows look dangerous."
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at George Bush's ranch in TexasBernhard wrote: but what does the 'S' stand for.. Nishant Sivakumar Nish :-)
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
I think without MS behind it, a slight breeze could kill MFC. :rolleyes: If I were just learning to program now, would I try to learn MFC? No sooner than I'd try to learn COBOL. MFC-only coders will live on for years in maintenance roles and in their own projects, but unless MS puts some serious muscle into updating it, it'll soon lose all appeal for new projects.
Shog9
Let your mercy spill / On all these burning hearts in hell If it be your will / To make us well...
-
Microsoft .NET is a very perspective technology, but I think it could kill MFC. Not in near future, but some time later. I didn't read anything about this, I'm just want to hear your opinion about MFC's future.
Well, where I work we create machine prototypes and the performance is very very important, nowadays we are programming in VC++6 and MFC, and due to the great amount of job I have not been able to study the .NET... When I can I will study it because as is a new technology I need to know it, I don't want to wake up one morning and see that I'm totally "out of scope"... I've seen the IDE that comes with the VC++ .NET and it has been a big pain... it is very different that the one that exists now... and this makes even more difficult to change from the MFC environment to the NET one... But as each new technology, it will have it's use and some people will embrace it and some others will discard it... MFC will change not disappear... there must be always a way to program only for your desktop computer in a fast way... avoiding the classes that are used to interconnect PC's via iNet and so on... ... I leave it here, talking about this is talking about the future and I cant predict it... :-O
-
Nishant S wrote: Uhm, I take it that you have never taken a proper look at the .NET BCL. If you had then you probably wouldn't be saying this Jim. Remember, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to use MFC while also taking advantage of the BCL. Well, no, I haven't. Interesting; I've heard of CLR, but not BCL. But, see, here's why desktop developers aren't interested in .NET: 1) It's geared primarily towards Web development. 2) It requires a 10 meg+ DLL. 3) It's not geared towards performance: it's geared towards Jave-like performance, via C#. No, I can't work on .NET while working on MFC apps. Why? No time to learn! Writing good code takes time. Even after 20 years in this biz, the last 12 doing C++ exclusively, I still have tons to learn about C++. Why waste time learning yet here another today, gone tomorrow Microsoft technology?
Jim A. Johnson wrote: It's geared primarily towards Web development. Amazing, this is a postulate that I often hear related to Java. It's a bit confusing, because I rarely use Java for the Web. I have done ISAPI and CGI in C a lot though, but I would hesitate to declare that C is designed for web applications... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
peterchen wrote: MFC RIP I hope not :( I hear the opposite alot tha MFC is growing and will continue to grow. I am just to ground in to my current programming habits. Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
Code4Food wrote: I hear the opposite alot tha MFC is growing and will continue to grow. MFC can't die, there is far too much legacy code out there that use it. MFC is not growing. There is no further place for MFC to grow. It is a ten year old framework that has served us well. Whilst we are still writing Win32 desktop apps then MFC will always be with us but for the new future that MS are creating, there is no room for MFC. Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879