🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec30.231117.19312@microsoft.com> stevesi@microsoft.com (Steven Sinofsky) writes:
>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.
>
>
>-- 

Nifty details.... But...

I have say that they are really fairly inconsequential in the big
picture. The only thing that would make sense in realtive terms is
the use or abuse or wrappers around the API. Frankly I prefer
wrappers, and I eschew C++ and it's classes. My preference runs to
white box techniques which the Microsoft Compiler's MFC provides
very readily, more so than the Borland OWL; however I like the way
Borland put everything together better than Microsoft. So it really
comes down to the way a person works, and their preference.

After evaluating both sides, that's what it comes down to. Features
vary in minor details; Microsoft better at some things, Borland at
others. Choose your poison. I'll take the bottle on the right. :)


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------