Ok so MFC isn't dead.

This is a discussion on Ok so MFC isn't dead. within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; For those of you allowing MSVS to access the internet you may have noticed on the home page that MFC ...

  1. #1
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,586

    Ok so MFC isn't dead.

    For those of you allowing MSVS to access the internet you may have noticed on the home page that MFC is getting a major update in MSVS 2008. It will have native support for the kind of docking and toolbars we all see in MSVS and Office products.

    I wonder why Microsoft is opting to update this supposed 'outdated' class framework? Not that it's a bad thing since I personally think MFC is excellent for GUI dialog apps and (minus the current doc/view architecture) isn't too bad for MDI and SDI apps.

    Perhaps not as many are using .NET in C++ as they thought would? Most of us would probably use .NET in C++ if they had not altered the language just to get it to work.

  2. #2
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Most of us would probably use .NET in C++ if they had not altered the language just to get it to work.
    I think that's true.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  3. #3
    &TH of undefined behavior Fordy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,786
    Also, companies have been using MFC for a long time. The tools are known and the coders know all the quirks & pitfalls... If it works for them they wont be interested in changing unless they have to, and MS knows this.

  4. #4
    pwns nooblars
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    1,094
    As far as GUI development goes, I never saw .NET take off, it has been used extensively for other things (web development/applications being a primary usage) but for stand alone applications, not so much.

    MFC on the other hand is used by 1/3 of the applications on my computer (if I had to guess that is).

  5. #5
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    I have a few .NET programs, they are pretty good albeit a bit slow on the startup, but once loaded they run quite well.

    What exactly is MFC? Are those just higher level wrappings of windows GUI libs?

  6. #6
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,182
    I've heard of this and I'm quite excited about MFC 2008 to be truthful! It's nice to see Microsoft reviving MFC again.
    MFC is a framework, simply put. It is not just a wrapper; sure, it has a lot of wrapper classes, but a lot of other classes aren't just wrapper and are very useful.
    It also aids in designing a GUI, as everyone knows.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  7. #7
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,160
    MFC? Does nobody write straight WinAPI anymore? For that matter does nobody program Windows in C anymore?

  8. #8
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,182
    Win API = Horrible.
    C = Horrible.
    No thanks. I prefer MFC. It has a very useful framework + very useful classes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  9. #9
    The superhaterodyne twomers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    2,262
    I tried looking at MFC but found win32 API easier to follow... Which is odd cause I love OO stuff... maybe I should take a look at it again.

  10. #10
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,182
    I find that ... weird. Windows api is a mess and MFC generally builds upon it, while simplifying it, so you shouldn't really have so much problems following MFC, rather than Win32.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  11. #11
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,586
    Win32 API is a disaster and thus using C for Win32 is equally as much a disaster. MFC is a godsend if you know how to use it correctly. If I were to wrap the Windows API I would probably come up with something close to MFC but not nearly as elegant or robust. For the most part they did a great job so why reinvent the wheel when theirs is better? I've only been using MFC for a couple of years (yes I was a bit late on the scene) and I love it.

    I can probably put together a C++ MFC dialog app in the same time it takes to put together a C# dialog app. The only reason I would ever use C# and not MFC is if the .NET framework offered me something that MFC did not. There are cases where .NET is the best choice and there are some where it's not. With the new updates this will surely become a case of more reasons to stick with MFC.

    I'm very excited about the new updates and cannot wait to start using the new 'stuff.' I won't dump C# because it's extremely useful but now it's nice to have a choice of using MFC with newer controls or .NET. If they found some way of allowing C# to understand this call, I'd probably use it a lot more often with existing C++ code.

    MFC? Does nobody write straight WinAPI anymore? For that matter does nobody program Windows in C anymore?
    It's called evolution. Nothing wrong with a language evolving to meet new requirements. At least C++ and MFC does not require a new 'species' of C++ like .NET does. So I don't understand the argument that somehow because people use C++ they are somehow dissing C? This makes no sense to me.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-20-2007 at 04:35 PM.

  12. #12
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,182
    Yup, same here Was excited about it when I first heard/saw it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  13. #13
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    MFC? Does nobody write straight WinAPI anymore? For that matter does nobody program Windows in C anymore?
    MFC is the tool of the devil. It should die a horrible agonizing death. I write everything in straight WinAPI, that is unless I write it in inline assembly, or RapidMind/CUDA. In fact, when I outsource projects I make sure they understand teh specification that the solution must contain no use of MFC. To be honest, i dont do that much GUI interface stuff; I mostly write the parts that actually get the work done, so MFC really doesnt have much to offer me.

    As for Elysia's feelign that WinAPI is horrible, I dont know how you can feel that way, an yet think MFC is great. I found MFC to be clunky burdensome and slow. I agree that pure C is probably less than useful for windows programming, but C++ is perfect.
    Last edited by abachler; 12-21-2007 at 08:41 AM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  14. #14
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,182
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    MFC is the tool of the devil.
    Is not.
    Explain yourself.
    Is it because it's Microsoft or something else?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  15. #15
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Is not.
    Explain yourself.
    Is it because it's Microsoft or something else?
    I program for windows, now unless the voices in my head are decieving me into thinking im writing for linux while I do it, I woudl say I have nothing against MS. MFC is incompatible with non-MFC applications. Its processing overhead is greater than WinAPI and it encourages people to move further from the metal. I like being close to the metal, the metal is GOD. Since MFC is far from the metal, it is far from GOD. While it is not quite the devil itself (that would be Visual Basic), it is certainly something that assists the devil is leading people away from the straight and narrow path, hence the appelation 'tool of the devil'.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. WIndows programming?
    By hostensteffa in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-07-2002, 08:52 PM
  2. Release MFC Programs & Dynamic MFC DLL :: MFC
    By kuphryn in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-18-2002, 06:42 PM
  3. Understanding The Future of MFC
    By kuphryn in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2002, 09:08 PM
  4. Beginning MFC (Prosise) Part III - Now What? :: C++
    By kuphryn in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-03-2002, 05:58 PM
  5. MFC is Challenging :: C++
    By kuphryn in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-05-2002, 12:33 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21