|
Steve Teixeira, the Director of Partner Strategy for Visual C++ had this to say recently...
"MFC continues to be the C++ application framework of choice for many developers because the breath and depth of support that MFC provides for the Microsoft platforms remains unmatched by other frameworks. Visual Studio 2005 makes it possible for the C++ developer to leverage existing C++ code, the strengths of MFC, and the advantages of .NET, all within a single application.
Looking beyond Visual Studio 2005, C++ developers should expect deepened integration between MFC and the .NET framework. After the release of Windows Longhorn, Microsoft intends to add MFC support for key Longhorn APIs and features. Microsoft also intends to support the Avalon user interface framework in MFC, providing MFC developers with a bridge to the future of platform user interface design. In essence, as the platform evolves, developers can look forward to seeing MFC updated to leverage the latest managed and native APIs and frameworks.
MFC developers have access to more frameworks than any other type of developer on the platform. As such, MFC developers are free to leverage the best from all worlds as it makes business and technological sense to do so. Microsoft fully expects to support this capability into the foreseeable future."
Also, he wrote in a blog recently...
"A lot of MFC developers are asking, "what comes next for my GUI?" WPF is the obvious answer for managed code. For native code, we're kicking around the idea of enhancing MFC to readily surface some of the new GUI features in Longhorn."
If he's sincere, then MFC shouldn't be dying anytime soon as some have posted earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't What MS are doing !
MFC is going die ! 
Iman Ghasrfakhri
|
|
|
|
|
why say somthing like that. 
Marvin N. Guerrero
- Casting More!!
|
|
|
|
|
What'd be the alternative in .Net platform for building new ActiveX controls or migrating them from VB6 ??
Marc Soleda.
... she said you are the perfect stranger she said baby let's keep it like this... Tunnel of Love, Dire Straits.
|
|
|
|
|
How fast is MFC work diminishing?
Where I work we haven't looked back since moving on to Visual Studio .NET 2002. Of course, we're writing small, targeted business applications on ASP.NET.
I can understand maintaining MFC applications for low-level, specialized applications that really must perform, especially on older systems, but what is the percentage of that work that can or is moving to the .NET technologies?
I think an option for "Don't use MFC anymore" would have been useful here.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
PeterK_ wrote:
I can understand maintaining MFC applications for low-level, specialized applications that really must perform, especially on older systems, but what is the percentage of that work that can or is moving to the .NET technologies
For new projects where I would of used MFC/C++, I now use .net/C#, for the very reason it's a far more productive than MFC. I'm looking forward to .net 2.0 (and even 3.0) the framework and C# language can only get better. I'll only turn back to MFC in my golden years as a maintanence contractor) as there is still a large codebase out there.
Microsoft have done an excellent job with .net ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
Blogless
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, it was not me who voted your message down 
norm.net wrote:
For new projects where I would of used MFC/C++, I now use .net/C#,
Having worked with C#/.NET a lot more than I would like, now I would use it instead of VB 5/6 - form based business applications and web front-ends. Also some ad-hock helper programs that I never bother checking into a source control system. MFC was a tool for complex desktop applications (CAD, a linguistic IDE) and these days I would probably pick WTL or some other modern C++ library for that, but .NET would not even be considered.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been programing MFC since nearly the beginning but even I have moved over on to C#. I can write my kind of apps in a lot faster time and know that they are less buggy. MFC is only used for maintaining one legacy app now. The transition was a difficult one as I started off trying to build C# apps in an MFC style. A model which doesn't really work.
Michael
CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
In our line of business, we develop real time applications. Those include live traffic monitoring, Red-light violation capture, and over-speeding violation capture. The applications mainly deal with high speed cameras, laser sensors, real time image analysis and AI decision making in a multithreads fashion. MFC is the only suitable GUI tool to take advantage of P4's Hyperthreading capabilty to keep up with the back end code in such an enviroment.
If you just write non-time critical business applications, any tool will do the work. In that area, VB is the best language to use.
One thing I do not like .NET framework is that unless you develop web applications that keep the code at your web server; if you distribute your application to customers, you will run a risk that people can always easily reverse-engineer your code.
From Microsoft's mind, .NET is designed mainly for the web applications(web service), and is not suitable for client distribution at all.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I think that most people that are now moving from MFC to .NET didn't write applications that fit the MFC model (doc / view). Look at Office, Visual Studio and some other large MS applications. They are all MFC.
IMO the reason why MFC was heavily used is that there was no better alternative. Now with .NET there is an alternative (and a good one) for small and simple applications.
IMHO microsoft is not going to let MFC die, but will continue to offer a wide range of techniques that solve different problems. .NET solves one, MFC another.
Behind every great black man...
... is the police. - Conspiracy brother
Blog[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with you, I did a little MFC before I started using C#, but it's completely gone now in our company.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
|
|
|
|
|
Did any one install a beta of vista? Unfortunately, I did! I wasted my time on it!
If you ever saw 'MS Win XP Media center' (if they continue this way of naming, next decades we shall write 5 pages to say a name!;P) you would realize that vista is a black  user interface for that OS  . I'm surprised that I was unable to see any major change after 5 years. I belive MS is going the wrong way: Trying to get google, linux, Mac, EA Sports,... and forgot what he was created for: Operating systems.
Another mistake from MS, I belive is .Net and I think they will lose a lot of their best programmers (C++ Programmers)(Just look at results and VC++ 6 is the winner! I don't think people use managed C++ with VC++ 6 ).
-- modified at 22:04 Monday 26th September, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm....it sounds like you've some axes to grind. If you expect everyone to share your views you are likely to be disappointed though.
We installed Vista on a test machine a week or so ago, and although its a little sluggish (not surprising for a first beta) the UI for the most part looks like a significant improvement on XP. If you've read the Vista roadmap you'll know that the first beta is just laying the groundwork. The "eye candy" is yet to come.
As far as VC 6.0 is concerned - just don't get me started. Try writing standards compliant code on it, or developing a solution with 80+ projects....
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services
Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch
"Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart"
- A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
We have a project that contains almost 3 dozen sub-projects consisting of over 500,000 lines of code, and it's working fine. It only takes 7 minutes to compile the whole she-bang on a reasonably modern system (we're using a P4 3.6 box with 512mb of RAM).
And since when does Microsoft worry about "standards"? VC7 certainly isn't that much better than VC6 at compliance.
You guys go ahead and "dis" VC6 all you want, but it's still a viable platform for a lot of folks and has the added advantage of NOT requiring a 25mb runtime to be shipped with your product. At work we use the MFC DLL's but at home, I statically link everything, and most of my apps compile down to just 250K. Even if I didn't statically link, the MFC DLL I would be shipping is still far smaller than the .net runtime.
Final point - I don't have to pay money to keep using VC6, and it certainly doesn't require spending $2000 on a new MSDN subscription.
------- sig starts
"I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
We have a project that contains almost 3 dozen sub-projects consisting of over 500,000 lines of code, and it's working fine. It only takes 7 minutes to compile the whole she-bang on a reasonably modern system (we're using a P4 3.6 box with 512mb of RAM).
Ours was 85 projects and VC6 crashed for most of the team several times a day. Opening the class view was a sure way to do it, as was shutting down the development environment.
Machines would also fail to build at random, for no apparent reason.
THe team wasted a great deal of time over these issues. We didn't move to VS2003 by choice, we were forced to by the bugs in VC6...
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
And since when does Microsoft worry about "standards"? VC7 certainly isn't that much better than VC6 at compliance.
It's enough to make a huge difference for us, in particular with regard to the C++ compiler and STL (which quite frankly is hell to use with VC6).
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
You guys go ahead and "dis" VC6 all you want, but it's still a viable platform for a lot of folks and has the added advantage of NOT requiring a 25mb runtime to be shipped with your product. At work we use the MFC DLL's but at home, I statically link everything, and most of my apps compile down to just 250K. Even if I didn't statically link, the MFC DLL I would be shipping is still far smaller than the .net runtime.
Just to be clear: I'm not "dissing" VC6 - merely pointing out that as a platform it's showing its age. We still in fact use it for two products, and I'm very well aware of the advantages and failings of each VC platform, right the way from VC 1.52 through to VS2005.
For example, the VC6 resource editoris far simpler to use than that in VS2003, but its automation interface is cripped to the point where writing anything beyond a simple add-in is virtually impossible. It's the latter (more than anything that kills it as a viable target platform for us...though lack of support for ATL7 and WTL7.5 comes a close second.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Final point - I don't have to pay money to keep using VC6, and it certainly doesn't require spending $2000 on a new MSDN subscription.
No, and neither do I to keep using VS2003 (upgraded for $19 from VS2002, which was given to me for free for porting ResOrg to VS.NET)!
Anna
Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services
Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch
"Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart"
- A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
And since when does Microsoft worry about "standards"? VC7 certainly isn't that much better than VC6 at compliance.
VC7 really isn't much better in compiliance than VC6, but VC7.1 is really better. VC 7.0 is officialy in compliance with standard at 83%(VC6 probably little less). VC 7.1 is officialy in compliance with standard at 98%!
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." — Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
1 Please write in english you know, International english! something easy to understand for other than english people. your first sentence can't be understand! 'it sounds like you've some axes to grind. If you expect everyone to share your views you are likely to be disappointed though'
2 I'm talking specially about 'Media center' which has the same start and task bar and menu but in diffrent colors, now if we even forget that, could you mention some major change over XP? Don't start with avalon please!
3 Have you seen 'MAC OS X86'? Some years older and I beleive much better in UI.
And it's not just UI. Did you compare root folder of Win XP and Vista? Do that please. try to count diffrences in files!!! I never saied Vista is a bad OS, I'm just comparing it to older versions and what I say is that it's not the result of 5 years work. It has not (as I saw) any major diffrences with XP, but consider other companies comming to the field. MS must be worried and do something.
I'm searching the facts. go and check qualities of EASport and MS games. What I found was surprising. MS was better improving, up to 2000 which has a lot of improvment (start of .net) but since then they just failed. What else did I find? If you were to spend 1 dollar in MS in 2000 now you were able to take 18 dollars, but in EASport you could take 80$ now. Look at google and Web searching. Take a look at Servers and Linux.
I'm not in US, but try to see things clearly. If I'm making mistake, then please tell me. I beleive Microsoft should do some changes, othervise they might be looser even in OS.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed, about your point regarding the Windows UI, I agree 100%. The only time it has radically changed is when Windows 95 came out after Windows 3.1. That is what we can call a complete change.
Since then, 10 years have passed and Windows UI is pretty much the same. Sure, some smooth scrolling here and some jazzy colors there, but where is the innovation that one can see in Mac OS incarnations (or any Mac product for the matter)? 
I don't use a Mac and neither I am a MS hater... Like Hamed, I would just like to see Microsoft innovate their UI. Amen.
Salil Khedkar [^]
-- modified at 0:56 Thursday 29th September, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure you haven't seen the latest Windows Vista since it has several enhancements that you might be missing, just to mention some: the new least user privilege access where you can do stuff safely even being an administrator on the box, the UI now has Search integrated all over the place but finally really fast, the new Windows Explorer has several enhancements including grouping, collapse and expand of groups, filtering, virtual folders, the new breadcrumb bar and several more. The new IIS 7 which adds a huge amount of features to really empower developers to create their own modules finally with all the power of IIS. New networking stack, new Internet Explorer, the new UI animations, the new Aero glass theme that has translucid windows, the new Alt+Tab window switcher, and I can just keep going and going. By the way I do love it and think it is far better than Windows XP.
Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
I use vista on a notebook, and I have to say: It's quite fast for a system that asks so much of your hardware. Ofcourse, it's the first beta and it has a lot of errors.
I don't share the view on the wrong choices of MS for .NET, they choose quite well to promote .NET in this way. I have the same experiences as Anna, it's a nightmare to develop a large solution in VC6. No I keep developing in C# and MC++ that's for me the way to go.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Just look at results and VC++ 6 is the winner! I don't think people use managed C++ with VC++ 6:laugh
Please, I wont you to Stick to VS C++ 6.0, that makes more loot for me
Blogless
|
|
|
|
|
what are you trying to say?
-prakash
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone here support the same code base on VC++ 6 and one or both of VC++ 2003, VC++ 2005?
It's easy to support 2003 and 2005 - since both compilers are pretty much standards compliant (except that 2005 throws all those secure CRT related warnings for the string functions).
But things like for-loop variable-scope are incompatible between 6 and 200x and it's difficult to get the same code to compile on both compilers without resorting to a lot of #ifdefs.
Anyone here does that? Support multiple versions I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
But things like for-loop variable-scope are incompatible between 6 and 200x and it's difficult to get the same code to compile on both compilers without resorting to a lot of #ifdefs.
Not at all - the only #ifdefs i have are around large chunks of code that are only necessary on one system or the other (mostly dealing with the deficiancies of the CHtmlView class under VS6). Most code that compiles under VS2k3 will also build under VS6 - in fact, my inital use for VS2k3 was as a sort of "lint" for VS6, since the compiler caught a lot of things that were likely to cause problems at runtime, but that the VS6 compiler allowed.
As for the for loop issue - yeah, the scope changed. But if you were depending on VS6's broken behavior, then you were headed for trouble already - the flakey scoping would cause problems in certain optimized builds even on VS6. I write nearly all my for loops in this manner:
const int nLimit = fixed limit retrieval;
int i;
for (i=0; i<nLimit; ++i)
{
}... which works just dandy with both versions of the compiler.
|
|
|
|
|
So do you suppress the CRT string function related warnings in 2005?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
