C / C++ / MFC

FirstPrevNext

Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Christian Graus8-Oct-01 19:02 Christian Graus 8-Oct-01 19:02  WTL is not supported by M$ at all. Too bad, because it is cool. Yup. It's not officially yet, but from its popularity I see in the WTL newsgroup, I think officially it will be part of VC++ in near future. I also think in recent days, MS has toned down the rhetoric about WTL significantly compared to what it had in the beginning of its release (remember the saying: "WTL should never be released" by Tony G., MS product manager) I doubt it will be supported, it's not in Microsoft's interest to divert attention from C#. I believe there are interesting things in the new ATL ( haven't looked yet ), but I don't see why they would release a new language if they also want to keep pushing and developing the old ones ? Surely it's a case of 'that has done it's job, now we are moving to this'. I think MS had to release C# because they were under tremendous pressure to compete with Sun's Java. If they have enough resource, they can still make ATL/MFC successful along with new stuff like C#, .NET. The only pressure they were under came as a result of their breaking Sun's copyright. If only Stroustrup could sue M$ for their non conformance in the case of C++, then we'd get MS++, the result of reusing the VC++ code. I believe they will run an each way bet, not drop MFC until they are sure people are using C# instead. As for ATL, you need that to write sheel extensions, etc., so ATL is probably safe for now. There sure has been enough hype about C++ being 'too hard' and VB being 'not powerful enough' ( the latter is at least true ), to indicate what they are thinking. I agree. There is much hype on this power and simplicity things. What most of C++ programmers are led to believe that VB is a RAD language while C++ is not. In fact, C++ can have VB-like RAD features, such as "properties" and "events" and products like Borland's C++ Builder (and our own product RadVC on VC++) have proved that a C++ IDE can be made as simple as a VB like RAD IDE. Oh well, that is another story. Indeed. I don't have anything to add, but I thought I'd be polite and leave the plug in. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery. Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Tomasz Sowinski8-Oct-01 23:48 Tomasz Sowinski 8-Oct-01 23:48  Their libraries have served them well, but the updates to MFC in VS7 are minimal AFAIK. No company grows from resting on past success. What would you like to see in MFC 7 and it's not there? The library is a mature product IMHO. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Christian Graus9-Oct-01 0:05 Christian Graus 9-Oct-01 0:05  What would you like to see in MFC 7 and it's not there? Not a thing. I'd rather see Microsoft work on ANSI conformance. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery. Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Mike Burston9-Oct-01 0:33 Mike Burston 9-Oct-01 0:33  >> What would you like to see in MFC 7 and it's not there? MFC is mature, or dated - depends upon your perspective, I suppose. I'd like to see a lot more integration between MFC and STL for starters. And at least an alternative to the MESSAGE_MAP macro approach to command routing (the current MFC inplementation was designed essentially to overcome size and speed limitations that existed in PCs and operating systems (win 3.x) back in the early nineties - the compromises and limitations that flow from this are no longer valid). Also better use of C++ interfaces, multiple inheritence support for mixin classes for creating command processing controls, and some use of templates - oh, wait, that's probably WTL (maybe I want WTL and MFC to merge ...). And a useful tab control like Delphi/C++ Bulder would make life a lot easier every now and then. And while I'm at it, I'd also ask for much better code wizard support when using MFC. And how about cleaning up the entire SDI/MDI and Document/View frameworks by allowing easier variations (single document, multiple windows, etc) and Model/View/Controller style interfaces? Does anyone actually create MDI apps anymore ?? And finally, perhaps MS can solve this whole Israel/Palestine/Muslim/Terrorist/USA thing so I can concentrate a little more on how to improve MFC. >> Not a thing. I'd rather see Microsoft work on ANSI conformance. Yes, yes, yes. At least get template support up to standard. Please. Pretty Please. Oh, and Christian - I keep meaning to ask (and I'm too lazy to look it up) - how do I put quotes in italics in a post ?? ---------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem." Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Christian Graus9-Oct-01 0:40 Christian Graus 9-Oct-01 0:40  The HTML tags for italics are <i> and </i>. Replace the i with a b to get bold text. And that's all the HTML I know Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery. Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Tomasz Sowinski9-Oct-01 1:01 Tomasz Sowinski 9-Oct-01 1:01  The thing you're describing wouldn't be MFC anymore. Does anyone actually create MDI apps anymore ?? Everybody does MDI. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Mike Burston9-Oct-01 1:31 Mike Burston 9-Oct-01 1:31  You're right - it won't be the same as good old MFC. And then we'd need a new name for this new thing. Something very current sounding like, say, ".NET" And that's why I think MFC is doomed to a long, slow ride into the sunset - it's already dated, and MS has no plans to even try to move it forward. It has no direct support for new C++ concepts/technologies like STL and templates, and little or no direct support for non-C++ things like XML and SOAP. If it doesn't at least try to move/change/evolve then it becomes obsolete, and MFC is well on the way to the destination. If you want any more proof that MFC is a fading star just look at CodeProject - it exists largely to allow people to extend (ie, overcome the limitations) of MFC in almost every area, and as a clearing house of knowledge of how to deal with MFC's problems. And some italic text. Hey , whadda know, it works - Thanks Christian ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem." Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Tomasz Sowinski9-Oct-01 1:40 Tomasz Sowinski 9-Oct-01 1:40  I think you're looking at MFC from the wrong angle. Why the hell should MFC know about SOAP or XML? Use it for what it was created: for encapsulating most often used Win32 stuff, like windowing. I'm using MFC only for rich user interfaces. Personally, I wouldn't be happy if MFC 8 suddenly supported SOAP or had its own XML parser. We don't live in the world in which there's only one all-encompassing library. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Mike Burston9-Oct-01 2:06 Mike Burston 9-Oct-01 2:06  Personally, I wouldn't be happy if MFC 8 suddenly supported SOAP or had its own XML parser. Well, I'd at least like MFC 8 to allow me to access the MSXML parser if it was installed (via IE5 and above), and to do it easily and quickly. A 'CXMLAchive' object, for example. We don't live in the world in which there's only one all-encompassing library I agree , a single all-encompassing library is impractical and undesireable. My point is simply that MFC is not changing, and the operating system, desktop, and 'outside world' are. Example 1 : I want to use MFC as the framework for an app. By default, MFC wants me to put my data in the CDocument, and I can get persistence of my document via the Serialize interface. But I want to store my data in an STL map, and write it to/from an XML file. MFC gives me no support at all for this. I have to write it all myself (or get it from CodeProject!), and I also have to 'decouple' various MFC structures (default message map handlers for 'File Open', etc) in order to insert my alternatives. Lots of extra work, plenty of scope for extra bugs. Suddenly MFC starts to look like not so much an App framework, but just a few common controls and GUI wrappers - most of which offer only basic features, and need to be extended to handle 'advanced' operations (which users now consider to be 'basic' functions). IMHO, MFC's serialization framework, the foundation of the whole CDocument persistence mechanism, is dated and inflexible, and requires far too much work to customize. It needs to keep up with changes in the way data lives in the real world, and it isn't doing that! Example 2 : I want to use GDI+ for my drawing code. But I can't pass any GDI+ objects to any MFC drawing functions directly, and vice versa. I have to keep track of which font handle is which, and which DC object I am using, and convert between the "wrapper" objects continously. Why can't I pass a GDI+ 'Font' object to the MFC CWnd function "SetFont" ?? MFC's drawing model is dated, and needs to be updated. I agree that MY wish list for MFC is extensive, and if everything I've mentioned was done then MFC would be not-MFC. But that doesn't mean the MFC should not be changing at all. Any product that wants to be "an application framework" must offer features that are needed by applications!! MFC is starting to fail this on a regular basis, unless the programmer spends the time and effort to 'patch in' the missing pieces. I use the Accusoft Image Library. It is a mature product - up to version 9 now (well, that's the latest I use, anyway). Each new version adds support for new image formats, and increases performance and flexibility. The product is mature, and growing. It remains 'current'. It added PDF support when PDF became popular, for example. That's what MFC should be doing, and it's not. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem." Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Tomasz Sowinski9-Oct-01 2:17 Tomasz Sowinski 9-Oct-01 2:17  Example 1: well, I have to admit that I'm using MFC as framework, but mostly for UI. My data structures (in CDocument-derived class) are STL-based, file formats are plain text or XML. I don't have much problems with this. However, I understand that it could be made easier. Example 2: can't comment on GDI+, have zero experience with this. Example with Accusoft - new image formats are the equivalent of new common controls supported by MFC, right? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Derek Lakin9-Oct-01 0:35 Derek Lakin 9-Oct-01 0:35  I have to admit I haven't seen MFC 7 yet, but from what I gather there aren't major leaps forward (please correct me if I'm wrong, I would like to know more). What I'd like to see is greater functionality out of the whole thing, especially from a GUI point of view. Just think of all the spare time we'd have if we didn't spend it extending the MFC library Derek Lakin. Salamander Software Ltd. Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Fazlul Kabir9-Oct-01 2:35 Fazlul Kabir 9-Oct-01 2:35  Just think of all the spare time we'd have if we didn't spend it extending the MFC library That is an excellent point. It proves that the term "maturity" often used in regards to MFC is rather relative. // Fazlul Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Tomasz Sowinski9-Oct-01 2:48 Tomasz Sowinski 9-Oct-01 2:48  It proves that the term "maturity" often used in regards to MFC is rather relative. [edited message] I strongly disagree. I don't want fancy bitmapped buttons, grids, sliding windows, etc. in MFC. This is a general-purpose library and should not contain any widget that's fashionable this fall. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Fazlul Kabir9-Oct-01 3:13 Fazlul Kabir 9-Oct-01 3:13  I don't want fancy bitmapped buttons, grids, sliding windows, etc. in MFC. Hey, that's why I used the word *relative*. MFC's own history tells us that it has extended and improved its GUI components from version to version. Sure most of them are more of a *wrapper* around their Win32 counterparts, but consider other GUI controls that are *extended* beyond this wrapping business (such as CBitmapButton, CCheckListBox etc.). Adding more controls into the library only makes it rich and thus leaving us, the end users to spend more time to make it even richer. // Fazlul Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Tomasz Sowinski9-Oct-01 3:25 Tomasz Sowinski 9-Oct-01 3:25  Adding more controls into the library only makes it rich and thus leaving us, the end users to spend more time to make it even richer. The problem is that rich library becomes bloated library. Take ISAPI helper classes for example. Sure, there are users who benefit from them, but I think they are not majority. Generally speaking, the life of library writers is not an easy one - they have to hit the bullseye and provide enough functionality within reasonably-sized package. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com Re: .NET to replace MFC???? Fazlul Kabir9-Oct-01 3:34 Fazlul Kabir 9-Oct-01 3:34  The problem is that rich library becomes bloated library. Yep, that can be an issue while redistributing the runtimes. I guess the new approach MS has taken in MFC7 by integrating it more into ATL has the potential to take a lot of load outside the runtime and make it even lighter someday. // Fazlul Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com WM_COPYDATA 8-Oct-01 14:32 8-Oct-01 14:32  I have two apps that share CString information using WM_COPYDATA.. One of my apps when minimized is hidden and can only be found on the system tray.. The problem is when I try to send WM_COPYDATA to the hidden app it fails (I'm assuming its because when its hidden it doesn't have a "Window Name").. any ideas on how I can keep my app hidden yet still send the data? Thanks, Mike Re: WM_COPYDATA Michael Dunn8-Oct-01 16:14 Michael Dunn 8-Oct-01 16:14  The fact that the window is hidden doesn't make a difference. As long as the window exists, you can send messages to it. Are you getting an error back from WM_COPYDATA? Post some code. --Mike-- http://home.inreach.com/mdunn/ "The Earth is doomed." -- Rupert Giles your with and Re: WM_COPYDATA 8-Oct-01 17:08 8-Oct-01 17:08  You are right.. The problem isn't with the window being hidden.. I threw in some code to pop up a msg box if the console app couldn't find the app and it didn't pop the msg.. I guess the problem is.. I spawn multiple dialogs with the same name, and when I send a msg from the console to the open app's I was assuming that they would all see the msg.. I set up the apps to look for a specific variable being sent in the msg and if it matched a CString that was stored in the dialog it would take the command and do what ever.. Guess I'll have to figure out a differen approach. Any ideas? Mike Sleep( ) 8-Oct-01 13:31 8-Oct-01 13:31  Hi. Is there a Function like the Sleep() Fuction which do not stop the whole Application. I want only to Delay and not to Sleep.. so any ideas? Re: Sleep( ) Christian Graus8-Oct-01 13:40 Christian Graus 8-Oct-01 13:40  What do you want exactly ? If you want to delay part of the app, try putting it in a thread. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery. Re: Sleep( ) Tim Smith8-Oct-01 13:45 Tim Smith 8-Oct-01 13:45  Have you tried SetTimer? That would allow your application to continue while you waited for the timer to go off. The only requirement is that you have to have a message pump. Even if you don't have a window, you still have to pump the message queue to get SetTimer to work. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc. Re: Sleep( ) 8-Oct-01 14:01 8-Oct-01 14:01  the timer is a good idea! thanks! Re: Sleep( ) Erik G. Poel8-Oct-01 14:06 Erik G. Poel 8-Oct-01 14:06  Couldn't you just use a callback function and let the default message handling take care of everything? SetTimer(NULL,NULL,nMyMillis,TIMERPROC); Erik G. Poel Re: Sleep( ) Tim Smith8-Oct-01 15:06 Tim Smith 8-Oct-01 15:06  Yes, but the important point is that you still have to have some form of a message loop. Which for 99% of all applications is already there. Sometimes people try to use SetTimer with console applications where they don't have a message loop. If you aren't aware you have to do this, it is very frustrating trying to figure out why the timer doesn't go off. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00     Last Update: 22-May-24 6:44 Refresh ᐊ Prev1...17907179081790917910179111791217913179141791517916 Next ᐅ

General    News    Suggestion    Question    Bug    Answer    Joke    Praise    Rant    Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.