Re: Is MFC finished? - Page 3
CodeGuru Home VC++ / MFC / C++ .NET / C# Visual Basic VB Forums Developer.com
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48

Thread: Re: Is MFC finished?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    14° 39'19.65"N / 121° 1'44.34"E
    Posts
    9,815

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by ovidiucucu
    You have paid no attention or deliberately have ignored that mandatory "and".
    Just wondering whether you consider Turbo Pascal bad or unsuccessful...?

  2. #32
    ovidiucucu's Avatar
    ovidiucucu is offline Moderator/Reviewer Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Iasi - Romania
    Posts
    8,026

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by gstercken
    Just wondering whether you consider Turbo Pascal bad or unsuccessful...?
    Hard to decide which one.
    But few time ago I had to write some Pascal code and got tired writting tens of BEGIN/ENDs.
    Despite that, it's not me the guy who created Death to Pascal.
    Ovidiu Cucu
    "When in Rome, do as Romans do."
    Visit: Microsoft Virtual Academy
    Follow: https://twitter.com/#!/ovidiucucu
    My blog: http://codexpert.ro/blog/author/ovidiu-cucu/

  3. #33
    ovidiucucu's Avatar
    ovidiucucu is offline Moderator/Reviewer Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Iasi - Romania
    Posts
    8,026

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Well, I've nothing against Pascal.
    Just to note that need long white beard until return to Pascal again.
    Ovidiu Cucu
    "When in Rome, do as Romans do."
    Visit: Microsoft Virtual Academy
    Follow: https://twitter.com/#!/ovidiucucu
    My blog: http://codexpert.ro/blog/author/ovidiu-cucu/

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cluj-Napoca,Romania
    Posts
    3,496

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by ovidiucucu
    But few time ago I had to write some Pascal code and got tired writting tens of BEGIN/ENDs.
    I remember when moving from Pascal to C it was "fashionable" to define BEGIN/END.

    Code:
    #define BEGIN {
    #define END    }
    Har Har

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cluj-Napoca,Romania
    Posts
    3,496

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Returning a bit to the topic I think that reducing your skills to a single language and a single framework is dangerous. I don't say .NET is better than C++ & MFC or viceversa, because it is like comparing apples to pears. There is no universal solution to all IT problems. Some things are best done in C++ while for others VB is the faster solution .

    If you need some quick Graphical App that simply reads some data from a database, .NET is definitelly a better/faster approach than C++. On the other hand, C++ is a much better option for an encryption library/HTTP server.

    Each and everyone has the right to like a language/technology. For me, the .NET although younger and sexier is no match for the good old C++
    Har Har

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,329

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Well it's strong to agrue against a technology that is easy to learn and works on different plat forms. C# and Java promise that.

    MFC has it's place, but no matter how you cut it, it's pretty much a Windows platform development technology, yet the compiler's organization tool are great for C/C++ general development.


    However the abity to take ANSI C/C++ and create a windows app has it's place.

    .. I guess what I'm saying is that if you are doing C/C++ in a Windows platform it's hard to agrue against MFC.

    But now that Java ( I don't know how extensivly MICROSOFT has created multi platform support for C#) provides strong multiplatform support it's difficult to agrue against it.

    MFC has it place but I don't think it will ever have the strong market share it once did.


    In my opinion VB, JAVA, ASP and C# are all languages that should be spoken by today's developer. MFC is a great development library and in my opinion the best library out there for windows development in C/C++ but it's not enough in today's computing world.

    In my opionion VB and JAVA should be in every MFC developers tool box. Unfortiontly MFC is only a WINDOWS developement tool.

    Now if Microsoft would create some kind of compiler that generated cross platform BYTE-CODE, that would definatley increase it's popularity ( I haven't heard of such a beast). But that would be awesome if they created such product. There is a lot of MFC out there, that is probobly being re written to C# and JAVA.
    Last edited by ADSOFT; December 31st, 2005 at 02:08 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    E: 120°.6, N: 31°.3′
    Posts
    795

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Excuse , I also wanna deliver my opinon here .
    Is MFC Finished ...????
    No, existence of life with MFC should depend on how many programmers are using it including frequence degree for use it . Of course , that may depend on the update version MFC that can help us to be much easier & conveniently to use with more powerful function. Also, sometimes effect for everyone is still important . as that will promote good spirit to encourage someone who is not using MFC to use it .

    If you still worry about your carrer now , to learn pure C or C++ language is also a good way to do what you want. As many many programmers in the world can do some excerlent projects with using pure C or C++ instead of using MFC , @Microsoft is a good model.

    In any case , to do what you like is always right , no need to worry about any . and you have to believe the whole world is in progress ......

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,329

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by gstercken
    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.

    Well I do agree that creating a GUI in .net (C++/C#) is a lot easier and I do like the Mask control that comes with Visual C++ .NET. That was always my grip with MFC/WIN32 that you had to create your own mask edit control.

    A functional understanding of MFC however is a great stepping stone to .NET technologies.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    E: 120°.6, N: 31°.3′
    Posts
    795

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Yes , ADSOFT guy's saying is right , to use VS.Net be is a lot easier to do something , but if we do like this all along , maybe there will have one problem to face, that is , what can we do without using MFC or like VS.Net etc, right ?

    In any case , I think that , to master C/C++ & VC++ or VS.Net is a wise choice , even if there is no MFC , we still do something just like using MFC, right ?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,329

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Well if you read this post, you will see why MFC is definatly not dead, and just might increase in popularity in the future.



    http://www.codeproject.com/managedcp...ogWinForms.asp


    That's a nice article. ... this was always my gripe with MFC lack of a MaskedEdit control. Just search this forum for how many times I asked for a good masked edit class.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    98

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    MFC deserves to die. It is a bad foundation.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Before MFC, if you wanted to write a desktop application, you had to deal with a monolithic switch statment handling the hundreds of messages that your app needed to process. MFC gave us an application framework, a real one, based on the Document/View paradigm, which, for a desktop application that is more than just a front end to a database with the ui being a dialog window (okay a windows form) with some buttons and text boxes, still cannot be touched by .NET. Until .NET comes up with a decent application framework, MFC will remain entrenched by default, in the case of desktop applications, of which there is still great need. Not everything is a .NET asp application. There are other forms of programming, Microsoft.

    However, underneath it all, the Win 32 library functions, I believe, are still written in C. The win 32 functions are written in C, and the GDI objects are some kind of hokey conglomeration utilizing C.

    Go ahead .NET. Have a blast with that!

    MFC, it's ugly but it's still the best we have!

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    14° 39'19.65"N / 121° 1'44.34"E
    Posts
    9,815

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADSOFT
    Well if you read this post, you will see why MFC is definatly not dead, and just might increase in popularity in the future.
    That sounds as if in your opinion the masked edit control was the only benefit of the .NET framework. How about the auto layout controls, such as the table layout panel, the flow layout panel and the split panel? How about tool strip and menu strip containers? Automatic scrolling? How about the GDI+ for drawing (instead of the old-fashioned GDI)? Or the automatic use of offscreen bitmaps by simply setting a property value? Not to mention the power of reflection and CodeDOM, the Decimal data type, the full-fledged support for localization, the easy way of creating and using fonts, the almost automatic support for application settings, the extensible built-in XML and binary serialization support? Data binding? The incredibly improved handling of tree controls and list controls by finally exposing their items as objects instead of handles? I could go on like this for hours - and, as already said above: Although I have been using MFC since the very beginning, and MFC has been "my" domain for many years: After having used C# and .NET 2.0, I would never look back to MFC again. The possibility to mix MFC and .NET (as in the article you quoted) is a nice feature when you have to deal with legacy MFC code. But I will never start a new project based on MFC if I have the choice. The whole .NET world is soooo much more productive.

    Again: All this doesn't mean that MFC is "dead". Nothing is dead - even assembly language still has its raison d'ętre where appropriate. However, with the advent of .NET, MFC and unmanaged C++ are technologies of the past. They will still be supported by Microsoft, they will even be developed further - but their importance for the mainstream of software development under Windows is steadily decreasing.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,329

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by gstercken
    That sounds as if in your opinion the masked edit control was the only benefit of the .NET framework. How about the auto layout controls, such as the table layout panel, the flow layout panel and the split panel? How about tool strip and menu strip containers? Automatic scrolling? How about the GDI+ for drawing (instead of the old-fashioned GDI)? Or the automatic use of offscreen bitmaps by simply setting a property value? Not to mention the power of reflection and CodeDOM, the Decimal data type, the full-fledged support for localization, the easy way of creating and using fonts, the almost automatic support for application settings, the extensible built-in XML and binary serialization support? Data binding? The incredibly improved handling of tree controls and list controls by finally exposing their items as objects instead of handles? I could go on like this for hours - and, as already said above: Although I have been using MFC since the very beginning, and MFC has been "my" domain for many years: After having used C# and .NET 2.0, I would never look back to MFC again. The possibility to mix MFC and .NET (as in the article you quoted) is a nice feature when you have to deal with legacy MFC code. But I will never start a new project based on MFC if I have the choice. The whole .NET world is soooo much more productive.

    Again: All this doesn't mean that MFC is "dead". Nothing is dead - even assembly language still has its raison d'ętre where appropriate. However, with the advent of .NET, MFC and unmanaged C++ are technologies of the past. They will still be supported by Microsoft, they will even be developed further - but their importance for the mainstream of software development under Windows is steadily decreasing.

    Well, I agree with everything you have said. But I'm a little confused. It's as if you got mad that I didn't praise all the other features.


    And I'm glad that we are in agreement that the post I added above is a promising feature of the new MFC.

    But to be honest with you, it's as if Microsoft stuck it to the C++ programers again.

    Visual Basic was a slap to the C++ progamers because the productivity of and expertise to get a VB app up and running versus what it took for a person experienced in C/C++ was night and day. The masked edit control, the lack of an ability to change the font size on a label at design time, and the difficulty of printing really slowed the learning curve of VC++ MFC develepment even for an experienced C/C++ programer.

    C/C++ programers got slapped again when VB.net and C# .net both got gui designers and not VC++ .NET (2002 edition). Again all legacy c/c++ code had to wait to get a gui that was productive.

    Now with the advent of VC++ .NET Microsoft has finally addressed the needs of C/C++ programers that like C/C++ and want to develop Windows products.


    I was very pleased to be able to cut/paste some legacy code in VC++ .NET and have it fire up and compile. It was cool to port some ANSI C/C++ code to VC++ .NET and get a gui up and running. ... I guess all the ansi C/C++ code could be cut and pasted to VISUAL C++ .net also, so port over an app wil not be a totall rewrite.

    So there might be a Market for MFC programers converting code to VC++ .net , since it supports C/C++ . .. MFC code can be ported .NET c/c++ at your own pace with the Enterprise editions as the above link menstions, yet I don't know if it can be done with the other versions (except the express edition). i.e. ....

    For those who invested the time to use MFC they can continue, and adopt the .NET at their pace.

    MFC could use some enhancements though. I for one would like to see it's own mask edit control . With the intergration of .NET C/C++ I think it's obvious that MFC programers of the future will be able to write their windows apps in SDK(Win Api), MFC, VC++ .NET(Winforms). It's just another library to learn and will gaurenttee that .NET technology can easily be intergrated to legacy apps.

    But yes I agree, VISUAL C++ .NET(Winforms library) is going to be a must for MFC & C++ programers. I like the Gui designer in .NET C++. If you want to continue with MFC I think the final Wake-UP call to develop MFC intergrated with Visuall C++ .NET (Winforms) has been rung with the 2005 VS and Express family sets. C# and intergrating MFC with .NET technologies is going to be a must for MFC programers. If you havent' started with Visual C++ .Net you are already behing.

    I guess if your going to call yourself a Windows C/C++

    You will have to know SDK/MFC/ATL/.NET at least.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is MFC finished?

    If .NET keeps catching on the way it does, who knows, Visual Studio 2008 Professional might be had for 500 bucks!

    Seriously, though, they need to come up with an application framework for us desktop guys (oh, excuse me....smart clients).

    I started learning C#, then stopped. It is simply too painful to look at the apps that were used for explanatory purposes. Just too romper room for my tastes. Are there real desktop programs being generated with .NET that arent' just web apps? Please point to example. I'm serious.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Windows Mobile Development Center


Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

This is a CodeGuru survey question.


Featured


HTML5 Development Center