Article View: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
Article #2012Re: MFC and Borland IDE
From: Rob Ryan
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:09
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:09
20 lines
1344 bytes
1344 bytes
In <1992Dec16.194955.19597@kth.se> d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se (Jon Waette) writes:
>In <61589@aurs01.UUCP> lynch@aurs01.uucp (David Lynch) writes:
>
>I heard Borland was a better (easier?) framework than MFC.
>MFC is not an application framework worth the name, it's
>just a collection of loosely related classes and you need
>a LOT of extra work to do anything non-trivial in MFC.
I've heard this claim before, but having only used MFC I can't speak
authoritatively on OWL. I know that developing non-trivial MFC apps
is not hard, but if OWL makes it a lot easier, I'd like to know. Can
someone give examples of non-trivial things that are easy to do in
OWL, but not easy to do in MFC? I sort of like MFC's minimalist
approach and am not likely to abandon it for the overhead (and DDVTs)
of OWL unless it offers significant advantages.
--
Rob Ryan
rryan@panix.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec18.050925.5363@panix.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!cmcl2!panix!rryanReferences:
<61589@aurs01.UUCP> <1992Dec16.194955.19597@kth.se>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!cmcl2!panix!rryan From: rryan@panix.com (Rob Ryan) Subject: Re: MFC and Borland IDE Message-ID: <1992Dec18.050925.5363@panix.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:09:25 GMT References: <61589@aurs01.UUCP> <1992Dec16.194955.19597@kth.se> Organization: Panix, NYC Lines: 20