|
I have to agree and I have finally decided to vote for this category (yes, it took me the whole week to decide).
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Someone answered the same as mine.
(1) Misc
(1) Misc./Other for articles that does not fit in the other categories
thatrajaNobody remains a virgin, Life screws everyone
|
|
|
|
|
How about just plain C++, instead of C++/MFC? It's quite sad that an obsolete Microsoft framework from the 90's is paired with a great language like c++.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen. I understand the historical reasons for that, but MFC really needs retirement from Code Project.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed - MFC's day in the sun is over. It had it's time to shine, and I used it a lot back then, but it's time to move forward.
I would prefer just plain C++/STL/Boost.
|
|
|
|
|
C++ yes
C++/STL/Boost no
--
Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
What on earth is wrong with STL?
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he meant that there is something wrong about writing about STL, just that C++ should be enough ... then we can write about anything related to C++.
Personally I would prefer C/C++ ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
STL is part of Standard C++, so needs no special category.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: What on earth is wrong with STL?
Nothing is wrong with STL but it doesn't need to be added to C++ as an extra qualification/niche. We don't need to have C++/MFC, C++/Boost, C++/ATL, C++/STL, C++/VS6 or even C++11. Just "C++" works fine.
And yeah, I know about C++/CLI.
--
Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
C++ goes to the same direction as MFC, so / is quite enough for this category name.
* Holy war expected
modified 28-May-13 2:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
Well actually there are still quite a few people who, like me, still have to deal with MFC a lot and I would certainly be lost without all the awesome MFC articles on Codeproject
I wouldn't mind a split of the two categories tough
|
|
|
|
|
Like it or not... MFC is still around and very prevalent.... although I do agree that some more plain C++ articles would be great.
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: Like it or not... MFC is still around
So are other C++ libraries and frameworks. I don't think MFC deserves special treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
Special treatment compared to what? ...there's sections on most commonly used libraries (with exception of commercial ones I believe). I don't think they're getting any sort of special treatment. Let's face it, this is mostly an MS developers site and MFC was a major MS framework for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: Special treatment compared to what?
Compared to everything else. The category is called "C++/MFC" and while I agree it made some sense ten years ago, it doesn't today. Most new C++ articles are not related to MFC.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it makes little difference. Worrying about how someone decides to group something is of little consequence, I'm just pointing that out.
|
|
|
|
|
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
ed welch wrote: obsolete Microsoft framework from the 90's
I haven't used MFC (or C++ in general) for years but isn't MFC still being developed? If so, it's still valid, despite being old (or old-fashioned). But maybe it just doesn't require a separate category.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
They maybe make one tiny bug fix each time a new version of Visual Studio comes out, but no new features.
|
|
|
|
|
As RoR is more relevant with regards to web development and technologies like ASP.NET MVC.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
How about a new category for articles that does not fit in the current categories? Such articles are actually covered by the Overall category but are competetive to articles from all categories reducing the chance to win.
|
|
|
|
|
Seconded. We've had really good articles on complex topics that have lost out to "Yet Another Design Pattern Article" or similar, purely because the latter is more accessible.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed” “One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”
Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
|
|
|
|