|
I never liked MFC, it always struck me as over complicated, especially those ridiculous macros just to generate a simple jump table. Probably because of my machine code and assembler background, I much preferred the Win32 API.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I never liked MFC, it always struck me as over complicated, especially those ridiculous macros just to generate a simple jump table. Probably because of my machine code and assembler background, I much preferred the Win32 API
Yeah, I remember my mentor at the time felt the same way.
I think the thing I liked about it at the time was the distance I got from the Windows Message loop.
It was wrapped up nicely in MFC template project.
Of course in the original WinAPI you had to handle it all yourself.
MFC was kind of like the jump to C# way before C#. But it wasn't as nice as C#, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
At the time, I liked MFC (serialization, for instance, was a kind of magic). Now I appreciate more the Winapi.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I much preferred the Win32 API
And that eminently portable help-file version of its documentation.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I was being a bit unfair. As much as anything, it was the documentation ratio (MFC : C++ = 1 : 1) that triggered my reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
I liked it too and still use to. It has become obvious that MFC is on life-support now so we are moving on.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's amazing that VSTudio still even supports MFC. It's too bad it didn't take off like C#. I liked it better because it was more esoteric. Seemed more like hidden knowledge you had to go into the cave and explore for. Then along came C# and brought everything out into the light and everyone was dragging and dropping and developing. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think C# is an abomination of a language and can't stand it. Only managed C++ is worse - that is horrific. I remember vividly the marketing when it (C#) and .Net was introduced. It was touted as essentially existing because c++ is "too difficult" and that is total nonsense. It seems to me this attitude has extended itself to the "everyone can program" movement. My view on that is maybe so, but it is painfully obvious that not everyone should.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Me too, I wrote a ton of MFC applications.
|
|
|
|
|
darktrick544 wrote: Me too, I wrote a ton of MFC applications.
|
|
|
|
|
Your articles promote an alternative.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Rather more limited (console UI only), and more like the STL (trying to be platform independent). But from a big picture standpoint, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: but all you needed (1998)
OK - I'll bite - what is on page 1998 that is all that is needed? 
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Coming from a non Computer Science background, the sheer size of this put me off at that time. I started taking management roles 
|
|
|
|
|
Management?! What are you doing on this site? Did you actually come back from the dark side?
|
|
|
|
|
I was a manager for three years, 1998 to 2000, and then became an individual contributor once again. In fact my first CP article came out in 2008, ten years after that management role.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back from the dark side!
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: Coming from a non Computer Science background, the sheer size of this put me off at that time.
I felt the same way. I was learning C++ from a Dummies book and then trying to get through this stuff. I remember when in 1994 someone gave me Petzold's Windows Programming book and I was so shocked that there was someone (one lone author, it seemed) who actually explained windows programming.
|
|
|
|
|
I had that one some years ago... In my MFC days mostly... I kept only part 5...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: I kept only part 5.
Yeah, I was wishing I could buy Part 5 (and maybe Part 4) separately for less $.
There are still MFC programmers out there though and in VStudio 2017 (and maybe 2019) you can still do MFC development so I wonder how those devs learn that nowadays without these resources.
|
|
|
|
|
Would you like to discuss a price ($$$$$$$)? 
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
when did tools add means to inspect which overloads exist for methods?
I can see each class and method parameter taking up a good section of the books.
|
|
|
|
|
maze3 wrote: I can see each class and method parameter taking up a good section of the books.
Yeah, Intellisense has been around for a while and mostly works.
Sometimes you need more though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, many of those look familiar.
The MS-DOS Programmer's Reference makes me think one thing: Int 21h
And I don't even know what it means. I remember looking at those books and being like, hmm...I wonder what a Int 21h is. 
The Winn Rosch Hardware Bible is interesting. I guess Winn Rosch was actually a robot since he had his own hardware bible. 
I owned a copy of that Inside Visual C++ (by Kruglinski if memory serves right) and I never got much out of it. Lots of books I'd get 2 or 3 chapters in and then get stuck.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
