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.
"I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008
"the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010
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.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?
Last edited by MK27; 03-31-2010 at 08:40 AM.
It's fine if you only target Windows.Yeah, except that it *only* works for Windows machines.
This is equivalent to saying that .NET is .CRAP.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.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.
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.