|
Yep, doing most of our work in C++ and MFC.
I'd like to switch to C# and some fancy UI toolkit, but the cost would be too great for no real advantages (at least right now).
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
VB6 and Win32 API (no ATL)...
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: VB6 and Win32 API
You are not alone. I'm still maintaining a couple of VB6 applications (and around 80 or so add-on modules/utilities) that have been in use since 2K.
Migration to .NET is an ongoing project starting with the smaller add-ons and tackling the main applications last. I figure I've got a few years at least before MS stops shipping the VB6 runtimes, then probably another couple more before my customers start adopting Windows XII...that will be about the time to retire! 
btw, I was the first hire in my company in 18 years ago and I've been the only programmer here (besides a couple of college students that really didn't contribute much) for the last 16 years so practically all of the old code is mine...at least I can understand it.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: VB6 and Win32 API (no ATL)...
That is Charles Petzold territory... (WIN32 API)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I switched to Qt in 2008 (mainly because of cross platform development). Although I do wish some of the stuff I had in MFC was available in Qt. At this point I probably have written an equal amount of code in both.
John
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time, I thought my career would be just about Win32 MFC, COM/ATL.
This got irrelevant, 5 years ago.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: Win32 MFC, COM/ATL.
This got irrelevant, 5 years ago.
Was COM ever relevant?
I still use MFC for writing test apps, for control panel applets, to go with my drivers, that kind of crap. It is ideal really, so easy to use, so quick to throw together UIs.
What do you use these days? Perhaps I should switch over to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Was COM ever relevant?
It had it's 15 seconds of fame...
|
|
|
|
|
It was a waste of time as far as I could see, it certainly didnt fix dll hell, it just created COM hell.
|
|
|
|
|
COM was the only practical way to share modules between different applications, services.
We write something in VC++ and share it with application clients that are made with VB, .net & even Web/JavaScript. It was doing a real good job on intranet applications from where you can control machines/hardwares. For any non technical folks, it was almost looking like a magic. Like, A web-page controlling hardwares? COM, ActiveX were all doing those magic.
And still, COM is being used by Windows extensively. I guess WinRT does good use of COM underneath, if I'm right.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: COM was the only practical way to share modules between different applications, services.
dll's can also be shared.
COM was designed to alleviate 'dll hell', where apps became dependant on a particular version of dll because later versions lost functions, or the interface to those functions changed, or the functions themselves changed behaviour.
So instalers would often overwrite a newer dll with an older one.
Of course if dlls are properly engineere this doesnt happen, and COM becomes irrelevant. Which is what has happened.
Vunic wrote: We write something in VC++ and share it with application clients that are made with VB, .net & even Web/JavaScript
But it id still a dll written in C, even if it has a different set of functions to access it. A COM module is (unless it is an out of proc server) a dll.
|
|
|
|
|
I think COM components fit naturally into the development environments of different tools. Application developers never have to worry about the importing stuff, datatypes mapping & even the physical location of the Dll. it was just piece of cake for the component consumer. obviously it was a lot of clutter for the component developer. And Active-X controls(UI+Com) were working beautifully on the web pages. it was doing real great stuff for the intranet. I know people hated it for the internet though.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
I only ever wrote in C / C++, so I guess it was no hassle to import a lib, either static or dynamic, it is just part of the life of a programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Are people really still coding in C++/MFC?
While our recent UI's have been C#/WPF, all of our products contain some C++/MFC components, at least in the underlying Windows services that run our equipment. We also provide some interface DLL's written in C++ that present an old-school 'C' API for third-party applications.
We also have an in-house tracing application that is a software Leatherman[^] for our products, also written in C++/MFC. Usually I'm all in favor of C#/WPF solutions, but I doubt this particular app could be written in C# and perform as well as it does. We have use cases where it runs in the background, recording data over days or weeks. It remains a good citizen (low memory consumption, unobtrusive CPU usage) for long periods.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I did a maintenance pass on an MFC app (ported from C/Solaris in the mid 90s) 2 years ago. As a can I still think in pointers exercise it was interesting; but at the end of the day it was just putting a ribbon of lipstick on a pig (literally, half the work was replacing a mess of floating window not-toolbars with a ribbon, the other half preventing corrupted appstate if you switch tasks mid-workflow) because the govt entity we were working for had money that needed to be spent or else.  I'm 99.9% sure our code/binary CDs were stuck in a filing cabinet and immediately forgotten about after the contract ended.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Just trying out the new FireFox.
So far, it does seem very fast.
Last night I had MS Edge running (with only 2 tabs open) and it ate up 500MB of Memory and Win10 reported that I was low on memory. Wow, Edge, just wow. Not even Visual Studio does that to me.
Have any of you tried the new FireFox? Just curious.
EDIT
Checking out Dev Tools (web console, etc).
So far it looks good.
Regular Browsing
Also, looks like new FireFox uses styles in interesting ways.
I like the different fonts it's using to render the page. Looks quite good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops! Others already reporting this.
|
|
|
|
|
I used it seems very Chrome like... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only downside I spent five minutes look for Chrome Cast...
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's nice, except for the new version of an extension that doesn't have all the features of the older version that's not compatible with the new FF.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see after reading a bit that many extensions aren't updated for the new FF and many don't work at all.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
