Difference between C++ and VC++?

This is a discussion on Difference between C++ and VC++? within the C++ Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; Originally Posted by Sebastiani Not a good choice, IMO. MFC was a poorly executed attempt to C++-ify the Win32 API. ...

  1. #46
    chococoder
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastiani View Post
    Not a good choice, IMO. MFC was a poorly executed attempt to C++-ify the Win32 API. I'd go with something like wxWidgets, Gtk, or .NET, personally...
    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.

  2. #47
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastiani View Post
    Not a good choice, IMO. MFC was a poorly executed attempt to C++-ify the Win32 API. I'd go with something like wxWidgets, Gtk, or .NET, personally...
    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 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.

  3. #48
    Registered User UltraKing227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    USA, New york
    Posts
    123
    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.

  4. #49
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by UltraKing227 View Post
    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.
    "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

  5. #50
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    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?
    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.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  6. #51
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MK27; 03-31-2010 at 08:40 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  7. #52
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,548
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidP View Post
    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.
    dot crap can go crash & burn.
    Nothing wrong with MFC if you want to do it that way.
    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.

  8. #53
    Guest Sebastiani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Waterloo, Texas
    Posts
    5,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    dot crap can go crash & burn.
    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 View Post
    Nothing wrong with MFC if you want to do it that way.
    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.

  9. #54
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastiani View Post
    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.
    Limited experience (yes, I have used it), and strong opinion.

    Yeah, except that it *only* works for Windows machines.
    It's fine if you only target Windows.

    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.
    This is equivalent to saying that .NET is .CRAP.
    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.
    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.

  10. #55
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    Don't belittle MFC.
    I never belittled MFC in my previous post, although I will admit I won't go near it. I don't need to.

    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]
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  11. #56
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,548
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidP View Post
    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.
    Now if they'd just put that work into MFC, everyone would be happy.
    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Tags for this Thread


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