|
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
stillborn and incomplete
Hence the recent update to WTL7 earlier this year? Incomplete? It's supposed to be light - that's part of the appeal. Besides, once you bring ATL7 into play (after all, WTL was designed as an extension to ATL) then I find there are plenty of classes. Even MFC7 shares the ATL7 CStringT template, plus you get file handling, server code (SMTP classes, MIME classes), etc. etc. Together I think that ATL/WTL makes for a VERY complete library indeed. ATL is well documented too.
OK, a lack of "offical" docs may put people off but there are excellent docs available off the web. Top tip: Add the dozen or so WTL headers to your project, and you can browse WTL objects using ClassView.
As for any direction change, who knows. Something like 60% (possibly higher) of our customer base are still using Win9x - how will me coding my apps in C#/.NET help them? Are they all likely to move to 2000/XP en-masse? Not yet they're not. I don't think .NET will be important to many developers for a few years yet. It depends on the business you are in I guess.
Such a pretty house, such a pretty garden.
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
Hence the recent update to WTL7 earlier this year?
I haven't compared the two: I gave up on WTL before VC7 came out - but I feel I can't make this point strongly enough: the lack of documentation is a clear sign that this is not a serious project. If there are good docs on the web, I have yet to find them.. the WTL docs here are also incomplete.
Don't get me wrong: I really, really would like to see MS come out with a next-generation desktop framework. I have no use for .NET, and am really ticked off at the deprecation of C++ and MFC in the latest version of the IDE. But without official support, WTL will never thrive.
|
|
|
|
|
I find WTL more intuitive than MFC and it is a lot easier to extend. MFC changes many of the features that the WIN32 API implements in order to get it's special message handling into place. A modal dialog box is a good example of this.
While there is no official documentation for WTL, if you are familiar with the Win32 API, it is a breeze. Most of the function calls are simple inline wrappers. And the ones that aren't like the GDI classes, they only make things easier.
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to continue using WTL, because of the support from the developer communites that use WTL, and the fact that you have the 20 header files that it is completely contained. So as long as WIN32 applications are in style, WTL can be in style as well.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Is WTL dying?
I don't think so. Besides, it's just a collection of C++ templates in header files - even if Nenad is pulled off the project, I think someone else would take it on - it wouldn't be hard to maintain.
As long as I have customers using Win9x and NT4, then .NET/C# is no good for me. I am also unsure that .NET has the backing that MS were expecting - time will tell. Always use the best tool for the job - and right now, WTL is the best tool for writing typical client Windows apps IMHO.
Besides Ed, I have seen your articles and they ROCK! WTL needs people like you! The more people using it, the better. MS admitted they were surprised at how popular WTL is, so we need to keep shouting about how good it is!
Kicking, squealing Gucci little piggy.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! I think WTL is great and hope it continues. I just don't want to get caught on the trailing edge again. My software losers: Quick Basic, Uniface, FoxPro, PowerBuilder, Power++..... My hardware losers: Amstrad, Packard Bell, Prime, DEC..... 
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Amstrad
Amstrad! *cough* 
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Jim. WTL, as a technology, is clearly superior to MFC (and I think to .NET). However, it is incomplete, undocumented, and not at all certain to become MFC's ultimate replacement. MS has put the weight of their company behind .NET. Currently, it is the best bet for moving beyond MFC.
I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to continue using WTL, because of the support from the developer communites that use WTL, and the fact that you have the 20 header files that it is completely contained. So as long as WIN32 applications are in style, WTL can be in style as well.
I am currently working on an game written with DirectX and WTL. I have been able to do everything that I wanted to do so far. I needed a more efficient message pump object than the original one that came with WTL, so I wrote one and plugged it into WTL. Works like a charm. (I also wrote an article about it here on CP, called WTL Game Loop).
WTL has its place, if you are moving on to .Net then this isn't for you. If you are staying with client based applications on a windows PC, I think this is a great choice.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Suggestions.....
How about a board on Web Services alone? I would say we could add a J# discussion board, but I think we all know where that would go. 
Nick Parker
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Those posers. 
Soliant | email
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." -Albert E.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant S wrote:
We need two more forums, or must remove 1 because now it's not rectangular
Maybe a merge of Managed C++ with Visual C++ one would solve the problem. MC++ has only 500 posts, and eveybody is asking MC++ question in VC++ forum anyway 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote:
WTL RULES!
I second that! 
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
Third! Me! I wanna be third!!!
Red wine and sleeping pills help me get back to your arms.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
