|
Just some clarification on option 1: I'm not trying to suggest that if Microsoft decide to support WTL fully then other products in MS will suffer. What I'm asking is that if the only way MS could support WTL was to cut back on other products, then would you still want it as badly?
cheers,
Chris Maunde
|
|
|
|
|
with .net emrging as THE programming model for the next 5-6 years (BG at PDC), then WTL, ATL, MFC are all becoming 'legacy' technologies. As a result improving the support of any library to program against these depreciated paradigms is not really a priorit
|
|
|
|
|
with .net emrging as THE programming model for the next 5-6 years (BG at PDC), then WTL, ATL, MFC are all becoming 'legacy' technologies. As a result improving the support of any library to program against these depreciated paradigms is not really a priorit
|
|
|
|
|
with .net emrging as THE programming model for the next 5-6 years (BG at PDC), then WTL, ATL, MFC are all becoming 'legacy' technologies. As a result improving the support of any library to program against these depreciated paradigms is not really a priorit
|
|
|
|
|
Subject ! Yeah I feel that WTL as good thing - but why do we have to wait other kewl things from MS
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon. I accept that there may be other priorities that MS has, but that first option is silly. There is no reason in a company the size of MS that they can't devote *one* developer (Nenad) to WTL.
Simply include WTL into ATL, guys, then this discussion will be moot.
Best regards,
Brandon
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the first option is silly at all. Supporting WTL means more than getting Nenad to pound away full time on it. You need the QA guys, testing, documentation, marketing, most likely legal etc etc etc. I'm making no guesses as to what sort of resources MS has at their disposal, but I do know they are understaffed.
cheers,
Chris Maunde
|
|
|
|
|
> <...> but I do know they are understaffed.
Well, I do not see M$ posting the jobs offer at CodeProjects (and they should), that's why! :
|
|
|
|
|
Even if the notion of MS being understaffed is surprising at first I can accept it upon reflection.
Nonetheless, given the fact that so many developpers are so keen on getting real support for WTL, I suggest that MS (of whitch I'm a staunch supporter don't mistake me), instead of leaving these ardent people frustrated pass over WTL to an open-source community (that could be federated around codeproject, why not).
After all, that would provide MS with a low-cost, risk-free opportunity of gaining first-hand experience in collaborating with open-source. Given the current "political" context such a move could do a lot of good to its public image.
As for WTL being sort of too little too late, well, I'm eagerly looking forward to using .NET technology, but it's not going to mature overnight. In the meantime, anything that can make life easier for developpers as well as make software better will be hearthily welcome.
In short, don't let WTL whither on the branch !
|
|
|
|
|
Well, of course, we might have differing views on what "supported" means. Documentation would be on the top of my list, followed by bug fixes and new features. So far as I know, ATL has had bugs in it since v3.0 was released, geez, when was that? Perhaps this is more of a commentary on what "support" means to MS.
Frankly, I think if we just had Nenad contributing by writing documentation and updating the code (both are jobs he's the most qualified to do), I think we would get more support than is currently available with the ATL library. Certainly he wouldn't have to be the only developer.
Chris is right: there are other depts. that have to be involved. I guess that's why I still think of option 1 as "silly" -- perhaps a better term is "hopelessly unrealistic" -- because MS is consumed with .NET and Whistler at the moment.
Best regards,
Brandon
|
|
|
|
|
I think that WTL came about from just a sample, ATLCON, there was a file I think it was called atlcontrols.h which was basically the start of WTL, then in a recent Platform SDK, they obviously added to this file enough that you caould develope resonable applications using this library. Anyway my point is that if this becomes more commonly used then it will obviously be supported, but I think that Microsoft quite rightly have to concentrate on their mainstay developement libraries MFC and ATL. I disagree with the One developer idea, if Microsoft do decide to support this then it would have to have the same quality support the MFC and ATL enjoy.
regards Erna
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
