asking about MFC

[coctile]

Hey every body

i'm just wanaa to learning MFC and i find some e-books and web sites
explin it but the proploem is the there explain is too hard to under
stand..

if any body have e-books , sites or ideas to learn it in very easy
plz tell me


(e-mail address removed)

 

[Victor Bazarov]

i'm just wanaa to learning MFC [..]

Try asking in 'microsoft.public.vc.mfc', they may be able to
under stand you better.

 

[Salt_Peter]

Hey every body

i'm just wanaa to learning MFC and i find some e-books and web sites
explin it but the proploem is the there explain is too hard to under
stand..

if any body have e-books , sites or ideas to learn it in very easy
plz tell me

(e-mail address removed)

Do yourself a favour, and consider anything else rather than MFC. Take
a look at WTL instead. Or GTK+, Qt, wxWindows, GTKmm and several
others i can't remember.
MFC is hard to understand cause those that wrote it didn't understand
it. Its not C++, Its a terrible architecture, doesn't support
templates, prefers expensive casts over vtables, only runs on Windows,
its proprietary - no source available, its very difficult to maintain
and provides so much code bloat that a tiny window with a few controls
requires 1 MB or more (WTL does it with 40KB).

 

[coctile]

the very important think is applying c++ program with graphical
interface !

in any way ,, not only in MFC

 

[Bo Persson]

Salt_Peter wrote:
:: On May 3, 4:40 pm, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
::: Hey every body
:::
::: i'm just wanaa to learning MFC and i find some e-books and web sites
::: explin it but the proploem is the there explain is too hard to under
::: stand..
:::
::: if any body have e-books , sites or ideas to learn it in very easy
::: plz tell me
:::
::: (e-mail address removed)
::
:: Do yourself a favour, and consider anything else rather than MFC.
:: Take a look at WTL instead. Or GTK+, Qt, wxWindows, GTKmm and several
:: others i can't remember.
:: MFC is hard to understand cause those that wrote it didn't understand
:: it. Its not C++, Its a terrible architecture, doesn't support
:: templates, prefers expensive casts over vtables, only runs on
:: Windows, its proprietary - no source available, its very difficult
:: to maintain and provides so much code bloat that a tiny window with
:: a few controls requires 1 MB or more (WTL does it with 40KB).

Source is delivered with the compiler.

Otherwise you are correct.


Bo Persson

 

[dave_mikesell]

the very important think is applying c++ program with graphical
interface !

in any way ,, not only in MFC

http://wxwidgets.org

 

[Salt_Peter]

the very important think is applying c++ program with graphical
interface !

in any way ,, not only in MFC

An MFC class is not a C++ class.
So if you plan to program in C++: choose something else than MFC.

 

[Scott McPhillips]

An MFC class is not a C++ class.
So if you plan to program in C++: choose something else than MFC.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Salt_Peter]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Dream on

 

[Salt_Peter]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You must be right, after all - i don't run Windows.
MFC has more macros than C++ code has semicolons.
Why? To disable a compiler's type checking ability.
Does that sound like C++ to you?

 

[Scott McPhillips]

You must be right, after all - i don't run Windows.
MFC has more macros than C++ code has semicolons.
Why? To disable a compiler's type checking ability.
Does that sound like C++ to you?

Actually, the key MFC macros (for message mapping lookup tables) were
made type safe some years ago. You're welcome to your opinion, but if
you're not familiar with the platform it would be prudent to withold
comment.

 

[Salt_Peter]

Actually, the key MFC macros (for message mapping lookup tables) were
made type safe some years ago. You're welcome to your opinion, but if
you're not familiar with the platform it would be prudent to withold
comment.

Really?
Made type safe long ago? hardly!
Only since .net did static_cast<> finally replace the dangerous old-
style C cast in order to prevent the stack corruption that resulted
from those lookups in release mode. (due to the fact that the macros
completely ignored the function's signatures).
What was the solution? Insist that the programmer was responsible to
provide the correct signature?
Thats ridiculous.
More fundamentally: since when is a macro a C++ solution for message
callbacks?

 

[Mykor]

MFC is a bear to program in, but it is lean and produces zippy
applications. Take a look at the Codejock components set at
http://www.codejock.com and drool over that ribbon control. MFC code
could be prettier, but never does it suffer from the "CUMULATIVE
OVERHEAD" syndrome that other languages (and even some C++ frameworks)
suffer from.