Re: What MFC Objects Can't be created on the Stack?

From:

"Tom Serface" <tserface@msn.com>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.mfc

Date:

Tue, 8 Aug 2006 07:50:09 -0700

Message-ID:

<uxggznvuGHA.4336@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>

Hi Joe,

I think, for it's time OWL was pretty useful. Of course, I jumped to MFC in
1993 right when I first saw it because it was so much easier to get started
(mostly because of the wizards). Still, I think Borland deserves credit for
doing a object based Win32 SDK front end when it wasn't cool to be doing
that.

I still think Borland's resource edit (then) was better than some of the
functionality we have in VS 2005.

I guess there are issues with every paradigm. It took me a good 6 months to
become even somewhat productive with MFC, but I still think it was worth the
effort.

Remember MSFT C++ 7.0 with non-wizard based MFC 1.0? <grins, ducks, and
runs)

Tom

"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@flounder.com> wrote in message
news:lgagd2pgq6h1p5nfunv1ubl5bam41pvm1o@4ax.com...

Note that Borland produced one of the most convoluted examples of a C++
interface to
Windows, called OWL. It required nonstandard extensions to the C++
language to work, and
wasn't all that good anyway. It died out because nobody wanted it.

Microsoft actually documents the "nuances", but the problem is that the
documentation is
hard to find, particularly because it is spread across several "Technical
Notes".

I've been told by some .NET programmers that there are equivalent issues
in C#. I've not
been deeply enough into C# to encounter these.
joe
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:58:35 -0500, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote: