Re: what's the differents between MFC Wnd && .net winform??
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@flounder.com> wrote in message
news:q61d33pkelq0gt3bel5ngij7s7b15a4u0t@4ax.com...
I used Borland for a while, but found it a continual annoyance. For
example, to edit the
STRINGTABLE in the resource workshop required that I identify the
16-string block I wanted
to work on. This aspect of the interface was so offensive (why should I
care about how
resources are stored???) that I got extremely annoyed each time I used it.
Also, it was
at that time set up for OWL, not MFC, and I decided I really didn't like
OWL (remember, at
that time OWL required nonstandard C++ extensions). I also truly hated
the text editor,
it was even worse that Microsoft's currently is, and the combination drove
me away from
it.
At the time Resource Workshop was released (Windows 3.0 was just coming), it
was a common optimization to group related strings into the same STRINGTABLE
because they were loaded at once. So it's not surprising the editor did not
hide this fact from you.
I didn't like OWL either, but not because it required custom compiler
extensions. (Really, why should we care about that? When was the last time
you switched compilers for your MFC app?). It was because I was immensely
turned off by high level frameworks that essentially re-implemented Windows
concepts using platform independent notation. Much like I am immensely
turned off by Firefox source code. Their XPCOM is really Microsoft COM, but
of course they can't call it that, and of course, they do a much poorer job
of documenting it. But now, .NET components essentially are pieces of that
high level framework, broken into islands of reusable functionality. Which
really are gems. So go figure, LOL. Anyway, MFC was a breath of fresh air
that it didn't add layers and layers of crap in order to do the same thing.
-- David