🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Nov18.175123.25365@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>We're looking at both of these packages, and both look potentially quite
>attractive.  It's impossible to tell, though, whether they're bug-free,
>comprehensive and well-supported without actually using them for something
>non-trivial.

>If you've used either (or better yet, both) of these packages, could you
>describe your experiences?  Incomplete APIs, bugs, tech support, anything
>else that's important?

We use C++/Views extensively here. We like it quite a bit and would never consider
doing Windows programming without it (if using C++).

What I like most about C++/Views is the OO abstractions. It has a good design
(but might seem strange to an experienced Windows programmer).  It has a very
Smalltalk like design.  We have found a few bugs in the classes (mostly in older
versions). So far this new version has not given us much trouble.

Support of C++/Views by CNS (the orginator) was fantastic. That's what happens when
you deal with a small company. The new owners, Liant, are supporting it but they just
do not have the knowledge that the CNS people had.

If I can say anything negative about C++/Views that would have to be regarding its
documentation. The docs are a good try but just not complete enough.  There are
just a few too many assumptions made on the part of the authors. It is kind of like
reading the Windows API docs only and doing Windows programming from that.

All I know about CommonView is that I played with a very old version of it a while
back. It was buggy and it did not do what I thought was logical. I hear the new
version is much better. Do NOT use the Glockenspeil C++ compiler with it even though
the vendor suggests that is best. This is a poor compiler and very buggy. I think
the new CommonView can work with MSC.

Al

-- 
Alan Walford     Eos Systems Inc., Vancouver,B.C., Canada  Tel: 604-734-8655
aew@eosvcr.wimsey.bc.ca           OR        ...uunet!wimsey.bc.ca!eosvcr!aew