🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41fcq7$h23@panix2.panix.com>,
Alex Chacha <achacha@panix.com> wrote:
>John M. Miano (visualware@interramp.com) wrote:
>: In article <41disc$e3v@toon.ctp.com>, sayer@ctp.com (Stephen D. Ayers) says:
>: >
>: >I would like to build an application that utilizes Visual Basic for
>: >the GUI with Visual C++ business objects. Is it possible to "easily"
>: >build an application that is a mixture both?  I know it is possible to
>: >call "C" functions from VB, but is it possible to "call-back" to VB
>: >code?  We are considering this because some people "feel" that VB
>: >GUI's are easier to develop. Does the complexity of a mixed
>: >environment outweighs the benefits?  Are there pitfalls to be avoided?
>
>: Unless you are the type of person who likes to mix broken glass
>: with your Preparation-H you should not be writing Windows front
>: ends in C++.  You can be much more productive if you use a tool
>: for front ends, such as VB, rather than dealing directly with the
>: mess that is Windows or, that mess on top of a mess, MFC.  (Using
>: OWL is very minor improvement.)
>
>: I have had no problems mixing C++ and VB.  I have always let VB drive
>: the application and have called C(++) DLLs to do heavy processing.
>
>: It is possible to call VB from C++ only by sending messages.  This
>: is not a mechanism that should be encouraged.  If you get into such 
>: a situation where C(++) has to call VB then you will be geting into 
>: trouble.  You should design your application so this is a rare 
>: occurance in your application.
>
>: An alternative would be to look at Delphi.  You would get the
>: Visual environment of VB and some of the OO capabilities of
>: C++.
>
>Such a simplistic approach to programming. MFC is an excellent set of 
>classes way better than OWL, and the fact you compared MFC and VC++ to VB 
>and Delphi puts you in a category of inept programmers who can't grasp 
>the future... C++ is complex, but it is the  only thing that is capable 
>of developing solid creative apps, and MFC makes architecture much easier 
>to work with.  It requires a deeped knowledge of the system and 
>programming to work in C++, VB is a high level excuse for non-programmers 
>to develop crappy apps...
>
>BTW good luck with VBXs and VB in Win32... And another 
>thing, go post to some other newsgroup, this is an MFC one, so go away to 
>rec.barney.fan or something!
>
>				Alex
>				Give me MFC or give me more MFC...
>
>

	I have built several windows apllications that mix VB and C++, VB only, 
C++/MFC only , C using WinSDK as well as 80286 Assembly using MASM 6.11 
mixed with WinSDK. The best applications are usually built using MFC/C++. 
They are very robust have a very sound architecture. MFC takes longer to 
master than VB , but believe it or not once you are past the initial 
learning curve, it's very easy to use it to develop programs quickly. 
As a matter of fact some programs take less time using MFC that they do 
in VB e.g. a minimal word processor can be built in MFC with only about 
10- 20 lines of hand written code, but the same would take a least 100 
lines of code in VB. Of course one option is to mix the two. Microsoft 
has several knowledge base articles on how to write a DLL using C++ 
language. All you have to in addition to what you do using C is to use 
extern "C" before your function definitions. You might want to look on 
CompuServe under the MDKB forum for these articles.
							
						-Asim