MFC or Qt?

[Bssldr]

That's a difficult decision, to choose between MFC and Qt. Haven't used neither of them so far. It's important for me that I can get a book on the subject. I've browsed online stores and there are no new MFC books, however there's multiple Qt ones. I'm a Windows user and I don't care if my software works on Windows only, so portability aint that important for me. Although I would choose the one that is more modern, easier to use and is better designed. I got VS2008 so I have access to MFC. As I'm probably going to make apps for Windows only is there anything that Qt cannot offer me and MFC can?


Your opinion please.

[Skizmo]

As a user of both, I prefer QT. I guess because it's easier. They are both C++, so there is no difference, but QT has a more open character. And I don't mean the fact that it's open source, I mean the way how QT handles things. No hustle with cryptic recourse files, but simple xml for example. Not worrying about manifest files, because QT doesn't have them. Not getting stuck with windows dependencies, because if the basic QT dlls are installed, it always works. Stuff like that makes it nice to work with QT. On the other hand, MFC is native windows, so some things work better with MFC on windows than QT. I guess it all depends on what kind of software you want to build.

[Bssldr]

Still considering. I would like to know if it's possible to build MFC GUI apps by starting with a blank frame? I really don't like that theres 3 options(Dialog, Document, Multi Doc) and then it creates buttons for me that I might never need.

[Skizmo]

...and then it creates buttons for me that I might never need.

Somebody once invented a beautiful invention for that... it's called a delete-key. The buttons and stuff are there as a starting point. If you don't need them, simply delete them. QT does the same if you choose the 'dialog with buttons' option

[Rockem]

Qt no question about it !

Qt is much easier to deal with and its portable

[Bssldr]

MFC sometimes doesn't follow the OOP concepts and can get messy because of that? Is that true? Also, Qt wouldn't let me manipulate a Windows machine like MFC would, right? Since MFC is a WinAPI wrapper, it can probably do more.

[Skizmo]

MFC sometimes doesn't follow the OOP concepts and can get messy because of that?

Messy... neuh. It is know that MFC doesn't always follows the rules, but this all depends on which version of the Visual Studio you are using.

Also, Qt wouldn't let me manipulate a Windows machine like MFC would, right? Since MFC is a WinAPI wrapper, it can probably do more.

This all depends on what you want to do. A nice GUI with cool functions is easier to do with QT than MFC. For writing drivers or hardware level device interaction you need MFC/WinApi.

[John E]

I'm interested to know where GTK+ sits (with relation to MFC and QT - or wxWidgets).

When I moved to cross-platform development I chose the GTK route; just because the projects I wanted to get involved in were already using it.

Like anything else, you get used to GTK and I probably now prefer it to MFC. But it's like getting used to a nasty rash. You never enjoy having it; you just learn to live with it. I don't like the way GTK forces you to pack your GUI widgets into tables - instead of just being able to specify an x and y co-ordinate for each widget. And of course it's fundamentally a 'C' interface which feels a bit like going back to Petzold-style programming.

Has anyone seen a comparison of technologies such as GTK, QT and wxWidgets?

[Bssldr]

I'm mainly looking to use MFC/Qt as an all-in-one library, not just GUI, so it would be a framework that I am used to and can meet my needs.

I might choose MFC as it can offer me more functionality with Windows machines. Can anyone recommend any new MFC books? The only new one seems to be Ivor Horton's 'Beginning Visual C++ 2008', not just a MFC book but has a good amount of MFC in it.

[aamir121a]

Basic level book on QT is

http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-De...9164732&sr=8-7

that's how got started , however those coming from VS 2008 or earlier , might find QT IDE not as good as visual studio , I guess that is the reason they offer Integration with VS 2008 or 2005 .

I agree with Skizmo the QT code is very readable , In my earlier post I made this point that MFC has not evolved , much since VS .6.0 ( 1998 ) I mean the way they do things .Microsoft focus has moved to .NET , Given the fact that all of it is still byte code it is no match for the speed and power of C++

[angedelamort]

For having used both extensively, I would suggest without any doubt QT. It's not just a library with widgets but also contains tons of other stuff. IMO, you would get what you want way faster with QT. The only way to be easier and faster would be to use another language like C# to get things done.

[Skizmo]

Bssldr, you keep avoiding the question 'what kind of software do you want to make'. As long as you don't answer that question, every reply we do in this thread is useless.

[Bssldr]

Bssldr, you keep avoiding the question 'what kind of software do you want to make'. As long as you don't answer that question, every reply we do in this thread is useless.

I can tell you what I might want to do:
Make nice GUIs, also just draw different shapes
Access the Internet, create server sockets etc - so networking.
Have algorithms available for generating MD5/SHA/other hashes.
Be able to get processor/HDD serials to generate so-called hardware IDs for identification.
Read other process's memory - I guess this is pure WinAPI anyway.
Have my program statically linked, without any dependencies to other dll-s.
Get system time to measure execution time.
Access the filesystem. (Get all available drives and so on).
Read/write from/to the registry.