Printable View
Maybe, but it's the de-facto standard for C and C++ based Windows applications so it's a good idea to have at least a passing familiarity with it if you're (planning to) work in the field of Windows application development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
MFC is evolving again. Granted, it's old, but it's still very easy to create Windows applications with. Does Gtk and wxWidgets come with a wizard to bind components to variables?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
if pure win32 api didnt exist, wxWidget was destroyed, .NET was stolen
and nobody has access to .NET anymore, then MFC would be a choice.
If Win32 API didn't exist, Windows wouldn't exist. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by UltraKing227
If you're going to be creating a Windows GUI application, use .NET. Whether you use C++ or C# doesn't matter....just use .NET! WPF has done wonders for Windows GUI application development.Quote:
MFC is evolving again. Granted, it's old, but it's still very easy to create Windows applications with. Does Gtk and wxWidgets come with a wizard to bind components to variables?
You are talking about a GUI used to create a GUI, I believe there are such things for gtk, yeah. Certainly there are things like glade that allow you to do it using an XML like syntax, meaning you barely have to code anything at all if you don't want to. Not sure if that is really the route anyone wants to take if they are intent on being a much of a developer, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
dot crap can go crash & burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidP
Nothing wrong with MFC if you want to do it that way.
Hey, that .CRAP just happens to be one of the most elegantly designed offering from Microsoft *ever*! You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Elysia, but I have to wonder if it's based on direct experience or if it's merely an arm-chair observation? I have used .NET, and I can personally attest that GUI building is a more or less painless. And most linux systems support .NET, too, so you can't use *that* for an excuse, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Yeah, except that it *only* works for Windows machines. Besides that, MFC is just a thinly-veiled "abstraction" of Win32, and moreover, an absolute kludge to work with. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you or confused. I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Limited experience (yes, I have used it), and strong opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
It's fine if you only target Windows.Quote:
Yeah, except that it *only* works for Windows machines.
This is equivalent to saying that .NET is .CRAP.Quote:
Besides that, MFC is just a thinly-veiled "abstraction" of Win32, and moreover, an absolute kludge to work with. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you or confused. I promise.
Remember, I have worked with MFC. A lot.
Don't belittle MFC. If anyone says .CRAP is good and MFC is bad, I'll just retort with the opposite.
IMO, .CRAP is worst thing ever invented.
I never belittled MFC in my previous post, although I will admit I won't go near it. I don't need to.Quote:
Don't belittle MFC.
wxWidgets has done excellently for me when developing non-.NET GUIs, and its openness is attractive.
WPF is a dream to work with compared to pretty much any other GUI platform I have ever worked with. Whenever I have to develop a program that requires a GUI, my first thought is, "Can I use WPF to do this?" It's powerful and elegant. Definitely one of Microsoft's successes.
[EDIT]
I will admit the fact that 50% (or more) of how nice WPF is is probably due to the fact that it is heavily integrated with Visual Studio, and Visual Studio makes it insanely easy to work with.
[/EDIT]
Now if they'd just put that work into MFC, everyone would be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidP