MFC/C++ vs .NET
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I don't see how .NET is more difficult.
.NET 1.1 was lacking several synchronization objects. .NET improved a bit in that regard but still has no direct support for certain things, like shared memory.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Joe Woodbury wrote: But, I was clearly referring to GUI code. Well, it wasn't clear to me.
lol, I stated "if you are doing more than basic GUI code". I did NOT say there weren't things that were easier in .NET, there are. But there are also many things that are harder. The Tree View for example, is lacking some obvious methods. Property Sheets and Pages aren't difficult in MFC at all. Neither are tab controls. I've never had to do a kludge except when doing something very unusual (which required a kludge in the .NET version as well.) One example is .NET does not expose the equivilant of the ShellBrowseForFolder dialog and several Shell functions. The Tree View and List View are both missing some minor methods that are useful in extending both. (I have working code for the BrowseForFolder and an extension to Tree View, but haven't written an article since some of the code isn't mine and I have no idea where I got it.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
lol, I stated "if you are doing more than basic GUI code".
I misunderstood that to mean non-GUI. My bad.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Property Sheets and Pages aren't difficult in MFC at all. Neither are tab controls. I've never had to do a kludge except when doing something very unusual (which required a kludge in the .NET version as well.)
Heh, when attending the Guerrilla.NET course at DevelopMentor in 2001 it was the ease of using the tab control and the threading mechanisms that caused me excitement. I was one of the dissappointed in losing some of what C++ gives us, such as scope relation to the destructor. But the gui stuff I liked. Granted though, the ListView is lacking as well, no clear way to associate data. The tree view though didn't present a problem to me, but I don't use all of its features. I haven't had to shell out in this current job. But property pages and sheets just frustrated me in both win32 and MFC. Dunno, guess its a matter of opinion.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Steve_pqr wrote:
Is there any advantage for me at all in going .NET?
Couldn't say for sure, but if you decide to go there, be very cautious when picking the GUI framework. Winforms are not only ugly, but also practically deprecated. There is the new framework, WPF, but the jury is still out with this one. Why don't you look at some nice C++ GUI library, like VCF[^]?
Unfortunatly WPF is a little too fresh for most of us. Plus you need to download two frameworks instead of one, which is a big disadvantage too. I just finished up work on a Winforms application that uses the Composite Application Block and I totally disagree with you that winforms is deprecated. It's a rocksolid framework that has plenty of flexibility and at the moment this is the only GUI product for .NET that is beyond the post-beta bugs period. Although WPF is interesting, it's also a really new framework that isn't that well documented, you will need a book and a lot more samples then there are at the moment.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "You can always try to smash it with a wrench to fix that. It might actually work" - WillemM
-
Contrary to what .NET evangelists are saying, .NET stuff isn't for all situations and scenarios. I'm writing code for machines where the overhead of .NET is simply just not an option. If I were you, I'd take a look at what I'm doing, and what I will be doing in the near future. If you're going to write time critical applications (think soft realtime systems, or systems with low hardware specs), then fiddling with .NET for anything than hobby activities, is just a waste of time.
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
-
For stand-alone apps outside a corporate environment, .NET simply isn't there yet. Even in corporate environments, if you are doing more than basic GUI code, .NET will drive you up a wall.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
if you are doing more than basic GUI code, .NET will drive you up a wall
Please enlighten me, I've having no problems with a 100+ user accountancy/manufacturing system?
We made the buttons on the screen look so good you'll want to lick them. Steve Jobs
-
Many people would say that if you are creating GUI based programs, then .NET is the way to go. We still use MFC for some very good reasons: 1) For what we do, we can buy a set of GUI widgets for the whole company for 6K and get more functionality from MFC than NET. 2) Too many people fall into the trap that being able to create GUI fast is a good thing. The vast majority of most significant software programs is what is behind the GUI and not the GUI itself. We have created better software and GUI using MFC than we ever did with RAD tools. We take the creation of the software much more seriously.
Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote:
Too many people fall into the trap that being able to create GUI fast is a good thing
Ah I agree, it takes years of practice, I find copying current GUI designs, I'm no GUI expert but I find looking around at Microsofts, Adobes GUIS and gleaning the best of worlds.
We made the buttons on the screen look so good you'll want to lick them. Steve Jobs