🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec29.164246.22111@netcom.com> garylang@netcom.com (Gary Lang) writes:
>"The end result was (quoting the stats from the magazine):
>
>                   OWL      MFC
>Lines of Code     3398      934
>EXE size(bytes) 56,848   46,536
>
>The OWL executable also requires 3 DLLs totalling 312,640 bytes.  MFC
>is a stand-alone EXE.
>-- 
>Steven Sinofsky"
>
>
>Yes, but the results would have been similar if it had ben OWL vs.
>straight SDK calls Steve, and that's the point. The metric that
>matters is: how object-oriented is the app. fw. and is it removed
>enough from the toolbox of the platform to get me out of the business
>of worrying about allocating DCs and so on. For MFC, the answer is no.
>
>If I want speed and size and that's it, I'll code in assembler.
>
>-g

Also quoting from the article:

"Most articles on Microsoft's MFC say it is a 'thin veneer' or
a 'wrapper' around the Windows native API.  This myth is not substantiated
by the facts.  Metrics such as line count, number of classes, and number
of methods indicate otherwise"

"Microsoft was able to implement our sample application using the
fewest lines of code.  In addition, Microsoft's implementation had the
smallest executable and required the least amount of runtime support
from DLLs."

Someone in this forum claimed that the MFC example used a dialog
box and that the OWL example did not.  In fact the OWL example
is also coded using this exact same technique.


-- 
Steven Sinofsky
stevesi@microsoft.com
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Microsoft, BillG does that.