MFC ?

Discussion in 'C++' started by none, Apr 17, 2010.

  1. none

    none Guest

    none, Apr 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. * none:
    > What does MFC stand for? Google gives:
    >
    > http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/Cplusplus/Using-MFC-in-Cplus-Basic-Application-Skeleton/
    >
    >
    > But in the bottom of this page the term is also used :
    >
    > http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp_mfc/general/article.php/c14535__2/
    >
    > I assmue that it is used to describe a design pattern in this context,
    > but which?


    No, it's the infamous Microsoft Foundation Classes, a C++ class framework that
    from a modern perspective embodies ~all possible wrong ways to do things. In the
    last article you cite the author refers to a design pattern used in MFC. That
    means that the design pattern is an abomination and should never be used.


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Apr 17, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Apr 17, 5:00 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:
    > * none:
    >
    > > What does MFC stand for? Google gives:

    >
    > >http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/Cplusplus/Using-MFC-in-Cplus-Basic-App...

    >
    > > But in the bottom of this page the term is also used :

    >
    > >http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp_mfc/general/article.php/c14535__2/

    >
    > > I assmue that it is used to describe a design pattern in this context,
    > > but which?

    >
    > No, it's the infamous Microsoft Foundation Classes, a C++ class framework that
    > from a modern perspective embodies ~all possible wrong ways to do things. In the
    > last article you cite the author refers to a design pattern used in MFC. That
    > means that the design pattern is an abomination and should never be used.


    Are you referring Microsoft is not following C++ Design Pattern
    rules? What is the reason why MFC should be avoided? I have heard
    that MFC does not improve performance. If you want to use WIN32
    programming, WIN32 API functions are recommended instead of using MFC.
     
    Immortal Nephi, Apr 17, 2010
    #3
  4. * Immortal Nephi:
    > On Apr 17, 5:00 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:
    >> * none:
    >>
    >>> What does MFC stand for? Google gives:
    >>> http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/Cplusplus/Using-MFC-in-Cplus-Basic-App...
    >>> But in the bottom of this page the term is also used :
    >>> http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp_mfc/general/article.php/c14535__2/
    >>> I assmue that it is used to describe a design pattern in this context,
    >>> but which?

    >> No, it's the infamous Microsoft Foundation Classes, a C++ class framework that
    >> from a modern perspective embodies ~all possible wrong ways to do things. In the
    >> last article you cite the author refers to a design pattern used in MFC. That
    >> means that the design pattern is an abomination and should never be used.

    >
    > Are you referring Microsoft is not following C++ Design Pattern
    > rules?


    There are no rules. But there's good, and there's bad, and what's good and
    what's bad depends on context. MFC was good for its purpose in its day. One main
    consideration was to be immediately usable for C programmers, instead of being
    safe. In addition to that it was created when C++ didn't have standard
    exceptions, didn't have RTTI and didn't have templates, so MFC had to provide
    kludgy ways to emulate such functionality, mostly via macros.


    > What is the reason why MFC should be avoided?


    Dont't know, I haven't heard about that. I suggest you ask that in a Microsoft
    group.

    But the C++ design patterns in MFC, such as reinventing exception handling,
    throwing pointers as exception objects, reinventing RTTI (which was discussed in
    one of the OP's article references) and reinventing templates, two-phase and
    n-phase construction, reliance on globals, reliance on generated boilerplate
    code and copy/paste programming, etc. etc., should certainly be avoided.

    Almost none of the constraints influencing the design of MFC are there today.


    > I have heard
    > that MFC does not improve performance. If you want to use WIN32
    > programming, WIN32 API functions are recommended instead of using MFC.


    Please ask that in a Microsoft group; it's off-topic here (see the FAQ).


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Apr 17, 2010
    #4
  5. none

    Salt_Peter Guest

    On Apr 17, 10:16 am, Immortal Nephi <>
    wrote:
    > On Apr 17, 5:00 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > * none:

    >
    > > > What does MFC stand for? Google gives:

    >
    > > >http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/Cplusplus/Using-MFC-in-Cplus-Basic-App....

    >
    > > > But in the bottom of this page the term is also used :

    >
    > > >http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp_mfc/general/article.php/c14535__2/

    >
    > > > I assmue that it is used to describe a design pattern in this context,
    > > > but which?

    >
    > > No, it's the infamous Microsoft Foundation Classes, a C++ class framework that
    > > from a modern perspective embodies ~all possible wrong ways to do things. In the
    > > last article you cite the author refers to a design pattern used in MFC.. That
    > > means that the design pattern is an abomination and should never be used.

    >
    >         Are you referring Microsoft is not following C++ Design Pattern
    > rules?  What is the reason why MFC should be avoided?  I have heard
    > that MFC does not improve performance.  If you want to use WIN32
    > programming,  WIN32 API functions are recommended instead of using MFC.


    MFC is built on a client-application framework or dialog framework, it
    locks you into a predefined model that probably does not fit your plan
    and whose underlying code you never get to see - its propietary. Those
    frameworks imply a GUI, C++ does no such thing. MFCs raison d'etre is
    the false pretext that inheritance is bad, so it uses macros to build
    psuedo-class inheritance.
    Take a look at WTL, same framework but with support for templates.
    What MFC should have been. WTL generates the same app in 50K which
    runs faster and more extendeable than the same 300K app in MFC.

    As far as C++ is concerned, what you learn in MFC you need to forget.
     
    Salt_Peter, Apr 17, 2010
    #5
  6. none

    Bo Persson Guest

    Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
    > * Immortal Nephi:
    >> On Apr 17, 5:00 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:
    >>> * none:
    >>>
    >>>> What does MFC stand for? Google gives:
    >>>> http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/Cplusplus/Using-MFC-in-Cplus-Basic-App...
    >>>> But in the bottom of this page the term is also used :
    >>>> http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp_mfc/general/article.php/c14535__2/
    >>>> I assmue that it is used to describe a design pattern in this
    >>>> context, but which?
    >>> No, it's the infamous Microsoft Foundation Classes, a C++ class
    >>> framework that from a modern perspective embodies ~all possible
    >>> wrong ways to do things. In the last article you cite the author
    >>> refers to a design pattern used in MFC. That means that the
    >>> design pattern is an abomination and should never be used.

    >>
    >> Are you referring Microsoft is not following C++ Design Pattern
    >> rules?

    >
    > There are no rules. But there's good, and there's bad, and what's
    > good and what's bad depends on context. MFC was good for its
    > purpose in its day. One main consideration was to be immediately
    > usable for C programmers, instead of being safe. In addition to
    > that it was created when C++ didn't have standard exceptions,
    > didn't have RTTI and didn't have templates, so MFC had to provide
    > kludgy ways to emulate such functionality, mostly via macros.
    >


    Not to mention that it also had to space optimize for the win16
    environment. At the time, things like the message maps were a
    reasonable way of avoiding having a lot of virtual functions that were
    never called. At the expense of some kludgy macros, and some runtime
    costs.


    Bo Persson
     
    Bo Persson, Apr 18, 2010
    #6
  7. none

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <2d87bbcf-7947-4a2c-9ba6-
    >,
    says...
    >
    > On Apr 17, 5:00 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:


    [ ... ]

    > > No, it's the infamous Microsoft Foundation Classes, a C++ class framework that
    > > from a modern perspective embodies ~all possible wrong ways to do things. In the
    > > last article you cite the author refers to a design pattern used in MFC.. That
    > > means that the design pattern is an abomination and should never be used.

    >
    > Are you referring Microsoft is not following C++ Design Pattern
    > rules?


    No, what he's referring to is the fact that it has "Microsoft" in the
    name, and therefore is widely viewed as am embodiment of evil.

    In reality, MFC does use a general design that's generally considered
    outdated in C++ circles (most of the classes belong to a single,
    large hierarchy). It has a number of other shortcomings as well, such
    as including more implicit conversions than some people prefer.

    Nonetheless, the "~all possible wrong ways to do things" is an
    serious exaggeration.

    > What is the reason why MFC should be avoided? I have heard
    > that MFC does not improve performance.


    Almost no framework improves performance -- they generally make
    development easier at some cost in performance. In the case of MFC,
    the reduction in performance is pretty small (smaller than with most
    alternatives).

    Exactly how much it eases development is open to some argument (and
    has been argued, incessantly, for almost two decades now. The system
    as a whole (MFC in conjunction with Visual Studio) clearly improves
    productivity compared to programing for the raw API. The question is
    how much of that is really due to MFC, and how much to the other
    "stuff" they provide that they don't provide for the raw API. From a
    practical viewpoint, that doesn't matter a whole lot: you're
    comparing what IS available against what people imagine could be made
    available if somebody (e.g., Microsoft) wanted to. Regardless of
    whether MFC is a major contributor here or not, if you want to use
    those, you're pretty much stuck with MFC.

    At least if you use Microsoft's development tools, you're also stuck
    with the fact that while they provide alternatives (WinForms, WPF,
    ..NET in general), they take pretty much the same situation even
    further: even worse-designed frameworks, only rendered marginally
    usable by *lots* more support in the environment.

    If you decide to use other tools, you have a few choices: wxWidgets
    was originally designed as essentially a clone of MFC, and that's
    pretty much still the case. It includes pretty much all the same
    problems as MFC, but without the wizards and such that let you ignore
    most of the cruftiness in MFC. There are a few IDEs oriented toward
    wxWidgets, but at least when I've tried them, they've been rather a
    mixed bag. None I've found really competes with VS/MFC.

    Qt is a rather nicer design, but unless the software you develop is
    free, open source, the price is *quite* steep. At least in my
    experience, its advantages are also mostly theoretical -- using it is
    more enjoyable, but not really any faster. Qt does *much* better than
    most portable frameworks at following the native look and feel in
    each platform -- but it's still well short of perfect. There's still
    a *bit* of an awkward, foreign feel compared to an MFC application.

    There are quite a few others, but you get the general idea. There are
    always at least a few qualifications associated with any "better"
    framework; it's better for some purposes, but not as good for others.

    > If you want to use WIN32
    > programming, WIN32 API functions are recommended instead of using MFC.


    Recommended by whom and for what?

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.
     
    Jerry Coffin, Apr 22, 2010
    #7
  8. none

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On 22 apr, 22:50, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > Qt is a rather nicer design, but unless the software you develop is
    > free, open source, the price is *quite* steep.


    What price? QT is LGPL. There are some special cases for hand held
    devices, where Nokia has some business interest, but MFC does not work
    there either.

    > At least in my
    > experience, its advantages are also mostly theoretical -- using it is
    > more enjoyable, but not really any faster. Qt does *much* better than
    > most portable frameworks at following the native look and feel in
    > each platform -- but it's still well short of perfect. There's still
    > a *bit* of an awkward, foreign feel compared to an MFC application.


    MFC app looks professional with its 16-color toolbar buttons? Come on.
    It looks like "two decades ago".
     
    Öö Tiib, Apr 23, 2010
    #8
  9. none

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <ef0c55ee-6233-43c8-aba6-
    >, says...
    >
    > On 22 apr, 22:50, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > > Qt is a rather nicer design, but unless the software you develop is
    > > free, open source, the price is *quite* steep.

    >
    > What price? QT is LGPL. There are some special cases for hand held
    > devices, where Nokia has some business interest, but MFC does not work
    > there either.


    It's available under LGPL, but there's also a commercial license.
    See:

    http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/licensing#qt-commercial-
    license

    for more details. Depending on what you're developing, you may not
    need that, but if you do, the price is quite steep (or was the last
    time I checked anyway).

    > > At least in my
    > > experience, its advantages are also mostly theoretical -- using it is
    > > more enjoyable, but not really any faster. Qt does *much* better than
    > > most portable frameworks at following the native look and feel in
    > > each platform -- but it's still well short of perfect. There's still
    > > a *bit* of an awkward, foreign feel compared to an MFC application.

    >
    > MFC app looks professional with its 16-color toolbar buttons? Come on.
    > It looks like "two decades ago".


    With any reasonably current version of VS, you get 24-bit toolbar
    buttons by default. That's definitely the case with VS 2008 and 2010.
    I don't have a copy of VS 2003 installed right now to check, but I'm
    _pretty_ sure it was true then as well.

    It hardly seems reasonable to complain that if you develop MFC
    applications with, say, VS 6, the results (at least by default) look
    like something from the 1990's. After all, it IS from the 1990's!

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.
     
    Jerry Coffin, Apr 23, 2010
    #9
  10. none

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On 23 apr, 20:38, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > In article <ef0c55ee-6233-43c8-aba6-
    > >, says...
    >
    > > On 22 apr, 22:50, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > > > Qt is a rather nicer design, but unless the software you develop is
    > > > free, open source, the price is *quite* steep.

    >
    > > What price? QT is LGPL. There are some special cases for hand held
    > > devices, where Nokia has some business interest, but MFC does not work
    > > there either.

    >
    > It's available under LGPL, but there's also a commercial license.


    You originally seem to claim that one can use it only for free and
    open source products and that is certainly not true. LGPL is not
    suitable for the people who produce closed source software AND need to
    enhance or repair the QT library itself in process AND refuse to
    publish the source code parts that they made to extend or repair the
    library. It is really special case. Does not matter to most.

    > > MFC app looks professional with its 16-color toolbar buttons? Come on.
    > > It looks like "two decades ago".

    >
    > With any reasonably current version of VS, you get 24-bit toolbar
    > buttons by default. That's definitely the case with VS 2008 and 2010.
    > I don't have a copy of VS 2003 installed right now to check, but I'm
    > _pretty_ sure it was true then as well.


    I got VS 2005 IDE here. NO, it has 16 color toolbar bitmaps. 2005 is
    patched 6 times so it is stable. VS 2010 is still beta. You seriously
    suggest to use anything from it versus well tested and stable GUI like
    QT? 2010 IDE itself is good example of "awkward and foreign
    feel" (your words) as bonus it is seriously unstable too.
     
    Öö Tiib, Apr 23, 2010
    #10
  11. none

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <22896c2e-0c77-4eaa-88ee-a2b987c5a9d6
    @x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, says...

    [ ... ]

    > I got VS 2005 IDE here. NO, it has 16 color toolbar bitmaps. 2005
    > is patched 6 times so it is stable. VS 2010 is still beta. You
    > seriously suggest to use anything from it versus well tested and
    > stable GUI like QT? 2010 IDE itself is good example of "awkward and
    > foreign feel" (your words) as bonus it is seriously unstable too.


    VS 2010 is released, not beta. That the beta was unstable is hardly
    unexpected.

    You've also ignored VS 2008 completely, and it definitely uses 24-bit
    bitmaps for the toolbar as well.

    I've made no secret of the fact that I think Microsoft's recent IDEs
    have been pretty poor -- I think they're serious steps backwards from
    VS 6 in many ways -- but that doesn't affect the programs that they
    produce.

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.
     
    Jerry Coffin, Apr 24, 2010
    #11
  12. none

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Apr 24, 3:15 am, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > VS 2010 is released, not beta. That the beta was unstable is hardly
    > unexpected.


    That "released" is also not stable, as expected.

    > You've also ignored VS 2008 completely, and it definitely uses 24-bit
    > bitmaps for the toolbar as well.


    That is true, VS 2008 can select count of bits for toolbar bitmap.
    Have switched to other solutions, that is why i did not even notice
    that it is not 16 colors anymore for VS 2008. I do not use it because
    it seems to leak memory (grows from 200MB to 1GB rather quickwith
    medium size project) and then tends to hang when debugging. It is best
    to debug with VS 2005 and to build releases with Intel's compiler and
    that leaves 2008 out of toolchain.

    When someone asks for C++ GUI that is useful for making Windows
    applications (commercial or otherwise) then QT is currently most sexy.
     
    Öö Tiib, Apr 26, 2010
    #12
  13. none

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <92d6a103-1a26-4674-b3b6-7fc5fc7c60c2
    @i40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    > On Apr 24, 3:15 am, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > > VS 2010 is released, not beta. That the beta was unstable is hardly
    > > unexpected.

    >
    > That "released" is also not stable, as expected.


    In my experience, it's more stable than any service pack of VS 2005,
    or VS 2008 (with or without SP1).

    [ ... ]

    > That is true, VS 2008 can select count of bits for toolbar bitmap.
    > Have switched to other solutions, that is why i did not even notice
    > that it is not 16 colors anymore for VS 2008. I do not use it because
    > it seems to leak memory (grows from 200MB to 1GB rather quickwith
    > medium size project) and then tends to hang when debugging. It is best
    > to debug with VS 2005 and to build releases with Intel's compiler and
    > that leaves 2008 out of toolchain.


    It seems a bit strange that on one hand you claimed to be unaware of
    the very existence of VS 2008, or even really simple characteristics
    of what it produces, but suddenly you turn around and claim in-depth
    knowledge of its memory usage and stability.

    Self-contradictory claims like this raise *substantial* doubts about
    your veracity.

    > When someone asks for C++ GUI that is useful for making Windows
    > applications (commercial or otherwise) then QT is currently most sexy.


    I guess that depends somewhat on what you consider "sexy". Just for
    example, recent versions of MFC support ribbon bars in addition to
    classic menus. I can't say I'm particularly fond of them personally
    (a euphemism for "I really despise them") but Microsoft Office uses
    them, and quite a few people take that as synonymous with "how things
    should be done." It's fairly trivial to support with MFC, but I don't
    know of any other framework that supports them (and I specifically
    looked for it in Qt -- if it's there, it's *very* well hidden).

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.
     
    Jerry Coffin, Apr 26, 2010
    #13
  14. none

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Apr 26, 8:36 pm, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > In article <92d6a103-1a26-4674-b3b6-7fc5fc7c60c2
    > @i40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 24, 3:15 am, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:
    > > > VS 2010 is released, not beta. That the beta was unstable is hardly
    > > > unexpected.

    >
    > > That "released" is also not stable, as expected.

    >
    > In my experience, it's more stable than any service pack of VS 2005,
    > or VS 2008 (with or without SP1).


    2010 i won't use anyway since it removed custom build rules. There is
    some sort of terrible trash (do not remember the MS name of that
    concept) instead of these so using it is out of question. IDE that can
    not integrate simple Perl script has no right to call itself IDE IMO.

    > [ ... ]
    >
    > > That is true, VS 2008 can select count of bits for toolbar bitmap.
    > > Have switched to other solutions, that is why i did not even notice
    > > that it is not 16 colors anymore for VS 2008. I do not use it because
    > > it seems to leak memory (grows from 200MB to 1GB rather quickwith
    > > medium size project) and then tends to hang when debugging. It is best
    > > to debug with VS 2005 and to build releases with Intel's compiler and
    > > that leaves 2008 out of toolchain.

    >
    > It seems a bit strange that on one hand you claimed to be unaware of
    > the very existence of VS 2008, or even really simple characteristics
    > of what it produces, but suddenly you turn around and claim in-depth
    > knowledge of its memory usage and stability.


    Where did i say that i did not know that VS 2008 existed? I have them
    all (since MSVC 6.0) in boxes somewhere, and so i verified, yes it did
    have 24 bit bitmaps. If I do not use the MFC since 2004, then i do not
    also care about its characteristics in 2008. 2008 was less stable than
    2005 and so i uninstalled it. Perhaps will install again when more
    service packs come out.

    > Self-contradictory claims like this raise *substantial* doubts about
    > your veracity.


    It was you who claimed that 2003 had 24 bit toolbar bitmaps, i opened
    2005 and even that did have 4 bit toolbars. Seems that we enjoy at
    least equal level of *substantial* doubts there. :)

    > > When someone asks for C++ GUI that is useful for making Windows
    > > applications (commercial or otherwise) then QT is currently most sexy.

    >
    > I guess that depends somewhat on what you consider "sexy". Just for
    > example, recent versions of MFC support ribbon bars in addition to
    > classic menus. I can't say I'm particularly fond of them personally
    > (a euphemism for "I really despise them") but Microsoft Office uses
    > them, and quite a few people take that as synonymous with "how things
    > should be done." It's fairly trivial to support with MFC, but I don't
    > know of any other framework that supports them (and I specifically
    > looked for it in Qt -- if it's there, it's *very* well hidden).


    Nope, it is not in QT, MS has something patented in that ribbon to
    block competitors. One can not use these on other platforms unless he
    avoids selling the product in US. Usability engineers do not usually
    suggest such thing anyway. It is basically a tabbed toolbar? It takes
    too much clicks/keypresses to activate, looks distracting and most
    users like menus more.
     
    Öö Tiib, Apr 26, 2010
    #14
  15. none

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <4f1940cb-da1a-49e2-ae21-
    >, says...

    [ ... ]

    > Where did i say that i did not know that VS 2008 existed? I have
    > them all (since MSVC 6.0) in boxes somewhere, and so i verified,
    > yes it did have 24 bit bitmaps.


    You started out by saying:"MFC app looks professional with its 16-
    color toolbar buttons? Come on. It looks like 'two decades ago'. "

    So, at least now you're admitting that was an outright falsehood.

    [ ... ]

    > It was you who claimed that 2003 had 24 bit toolbar bitmaps, i
    > opened 2005 and even that did have 4 bit toolbars. Seems that we
    > enjoy at least equal level of *substantial* doubts there. :)


    What I actually said was: "I don't have a copy of VS 2003 installed
    right now to check, but I'm _pretty_ sure it was true then as well."

    Trying to treat that as being dishonest in any way is simply twisting
    the truth.

    [ ... ribbon bars ]

    > Nope, it is not in QT, MS has something patented in that ribbon to
    > block competitors. One can not use these on other platforms unless he
    > avoids selling the product in US. Usability engineers do not usually
    > suggest such thing anyway. It is basically a tabbed toolbar? It takes
    > too much clicks/keypresses to activate, looks distracting and most
    > users like menus more.


    Doing a bit of looking, MS seems quite open to licensing. Regardless
    of that, MFC supports it, and Qt doesn't. Quite a bit of the "sexy"
    parts of Qt have serious problems as well. The difference is that no
    customer I've talked to seems to want any of Qt's poorly designed
    elements, while quite a few *do* want (vociferously in some cases)
    Microsoft's.

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.
     
    Jerry Coffin, Apr 26, 2010
    #15
  16. none

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Apr 27, 12:42 am, Jerry Coffin <> wrote:

    > You started out by saying:"MFC app looks professional with its 16-
    > color toolbar buttons? Come on. It looks like 'two decades ago'. "
    > [ ... ]
    > What I actually said was: "I don't have a copy of VS 2003 installed
    > right now to check, but I'm _pretty_ sure it was true then as well."


    Yes and i don't see the difference. I did not have 2008 installed
    right then. I looked into what i had installed (VS 2005). GUI
    designing support there still was same crap as i remembered. Today i
    dug out my copy of 2008 looked into and agreed that i was mistaken
    about particular count of bits. Did i start to accuse pointlessly of
    lack of honesty and veracity? I even attached smiley to my reply to
    display that i did not mean it too seriously.

    > > Nope, it is not in QT, MS has something patented in that ribbon to
    > > block competitors. One can not use these on other platforms unless he
    > > avoids selling the product in US. Usability engineers do not usually
    > > suggest such thing anyway. It is basically a tabbed toolbar? It takes
    > > too much clicks/keypresses to activate, looks distracting and most
    > > users like menus more.

    >
    > Doing a bit of looking, MS seems quite open to licensing. Regardless
    > of that, MFC supports it, and Qt doesn't. Quite a bit of the "sexy"
    > parts of Qt have serious problems as well. The difference is that no
    > customer I've talked to seems to want any of Qt's poorly designed
    > elements, while quite a few *do* want (vociferously in some cases)
    > Microsoft's.


    Why to worry? Apparently I do not compete with you satifying these
    boisterously demanding Windows customers. There are plenty of
    customers ... talented developers are in constant deficite. Also i
    don't care to bash MS. Fine company and big deal of todays world wide
    computerisation is thanks to Windowses running on every piece of scrap-
    iron. VS 2005 IDE is useful (QT-creator or XCode aren't even close).
    VS 2010 i won't use since it has lost vital features. Tabbed button
    ribbons of MFC in VS 2010 are therefore all yours. ;-) If you are
    happy with all that thing then good for you. Peace.
     
    Öö Tiib, Apr 27, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ss

    mslu for VC7 with static MFC

    ss, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    989
  2. Tarundeep Singh Kalra

    VC++ MFC and .NET

    Tarundeep Singh Kalra, Jan 19, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,584
    Gaurav Khanna [C#/.NET MVP]
    Jan 23, 2004
  3. Scott McPhillips
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
    Scott McPhillips
    Jul 5, 2003
  4. ringos75
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    978
    ringos75
    Apr 14, 2005
  5. yopwojtek

    Derive from MFC DLL to MFC APP

    yopwojtek, Aug 6, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    392
    Alf P. Steinbach
    Aug 6, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page