Re: Is MFC finished?

**ovidiucucu** · October 27th, 2005, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by maverick786us

3) Stick to VC++ only, cuz there will always be the requirement of VC++ developers in today as well as future.

Never stick in anything.

**gstercken** · October 27th, 2005, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by maverick786us

Why i am asking all this is because its always hard to switch on to something new and start from scratchwhen you are into it for more than 2 yrs

Objection. I'm into C since 1984 now, into C++ since 1991, and I have been using MFC during the last 12 years. However, in my current project I use C# and the .NET 2.0 Framework (although it's still in Beta and will only be released two weeks from now), and we're already heading towards C#/.NET 3.0 / WinFX (WPF aka "Avalon", WCF aka "Indigo" etc.). So although I'm really deeply "into" MFC and it has been my favourite framework for writing GUI code on a daily basis for many years, when starting a new GUI app today I would never look back to MFC.

In the IT world, you have to be flexible and willing to learn new technologies and paradigms every few years. You also have to understand when an era ends...
I know, these might be critical statements in a VC++ / MFC forum. Again, I'm far from saying that MFC is dead. MFC code will still be around for a very long time, the MFC library itself is being developed further, and there will always be a need for developers proficient in C++ and MFC. But your career chances will be far better if you additionally embrace new technologies instead of ignoring them. Besides that, and as said elsewhere: The entire managed / unmanaged interop story is becoming more and more important, so being an expert in both worlds is a very good idea IMO.

**ovidiucucu** · October 27th, 2005, 08:21 AM

Nice speech [*applauding*]!

**MrBeans** · October 27th, 2005, 08:28 AM

BTW what about my question:
Is it possible to combine the .NET program with Win32 API??

**gstercken** · October 27th, 2005, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by MrBeans

BTW what about my question:

Sorry, I had put you into the holding pattern... Please standby, I'll get back to your questions soon.

**ovidiucucu** · October 27th, 2005, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by MrBeans

BTW what about my question:
Is it possible to combine the .NET program with Win32 API??

Once calling Win32 API is possible even from VB6 and older, why should be not possible from .NET/VB/C#?
I have asked the dotnetgurus around me and they said: "possible" plus "ughh".

**MrBeans** · October 27th, 2005, 08:50 AM

oh thanks ovidiucucu, I did not think in that direction at all

Anyway I am on standby

waiting for gstercken reply.

**ovidiucucu** · October 27th, 2005, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by MrBeans

oh thanks ovidiucucu, I did not think in that direction at all

I know, I know. Just was shooting in the dark.

**gstercken** · October 27th, 2005, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by MrBeans

Please tell me one last thing gstercken. Do you accept that Win32 with MFC is the strongest kind of programming technique available and is even more powerful than .NET or anything else today?

It depends on what you mean by "strong" and "powerful". If that means "getting most work done in a highly productive way with least possible coding and risk of errors", then certainly not. If, OTOH, by "powerful" you mean the ability to write low-level code which deals directly with processor registers or implement your own memory manager, then C++ is certainly more "powerful" (although MFC won't help you much here either). Just wondering: When was the last time you actually had to do this kind of things?

Originally Posted by MrBeans

If so is it possible to combine Win32 with .NET like use an Win32 API to alter a control say in .NET.

Of course, that's what interop is all about. The most common ways to do this is to either use COM interfaces (which you can directly call from managed code) or to use C++ (which is currently the only high-level language that lets you mix managed and unmanaged code).

A few years ago, when all the world was talking about COM and ActiveX, I also adopted them (I had to, since projects at that time required it), although I have never been convinced of them. And although some of the concepts (especially the idea to use interfaces extensively) have survived and can be found in .NET today, diving so deep into that complex and clumsy technology has been a waste of time in the long run.
When the Java hype started, I luckily managed to get almost completely around it (the most important stuff I lately did with Java was porting Java apps back to C++ / MFC, because customers didn't want to see Java code any longer in their projects for various reasons).
However, C# (as a language) and .NET (both the CLR/CTS and managed code as a technology and the framework itself as a class library) feel completely different, and I predict them a great future. I'm really looking forward to reading these statements again 5-10 years from now... Let's see what the future brings!

**cilu** · October 27th, 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by MrBeans

Is it possible to combine the .NET program with Win32 API??

It is, but as a rule of thumb try make calls to Win32API from your managed code only when absolutely necessary. The interop overhead can prove significant for the speed of your app.

**shivajvc_bang** · October 27th, 2005, 10:31 AM

OK. Cool Guys.

Is MFC Finished?is the market is changed?

These all questions come to software fields every day.Only as gstercken said "adapt to new things" is the only solution.

"MFC has many different strong points compared to VB like owner-drawing etc."

Upgrade urself and be smart . That's it..

**luvrahul** · October 27th, 2005, 05:53 PM

I am working for more than 6 years in this field and I have seen work coming in all the times.

Also some new companies are using MFC for their products too. They use the .net platform editor and use MFC.

I guess its just a timepass debate. Nothing is going to happen to good old MFC which revolutionized the windows based development industry.

**ovidiucucu** · October 30th, 2005, 08:17 AM

As a little aside observation:
All successful and good (successful doesn't always mean good so "and" is mandatory) programming languages creators (e.g. Kernighan, Ritchie, and Stroustrup) had beard at the moment of creation.
The creator of C# had not.

Well, we'll see... maybe there are just statistics...

**gstercken** · October 30th, 2005, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by ovidiucucu

All successful and good (...) programming languages creators (e.g. Kernighan, Ritchie, and Stroustrup) had beard at the moment of creation.
The creator of C# had not.

How about Turbo Pascal? Already way back then, Anders Hejlsberg had no beard...

**ovidiucucu** · October 30th, 2005, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by gstercken

How about Turbo Pascal? Already way back then, Anders Hejlsberg had no beard...

Well, well, well!...
You have paid no attention or deliberately have ignored that mandatory "and".

Thread: Re: Is MFC finished?

Thread Tools

Display