DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

  1. #1
    mxc Guest

    C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    Hi all,
    In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem in
    that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC class
    libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the case
    or am I confused?

  2. #2
    James Curran Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

    The .Net libraries are separate from MFC, but that doesn't mean that C++
    is not part of the .Net. C++ is fully supported by .Net. MFC & .Net are
    just targeted at different areas. (MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web
    applications). Choose you platform based on your needs.

    --
    Truth,
    James Curran
    www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)
    www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
    www.aurora-inc.com (Day job)


    "mxc" <mxc@nospam.co.za> wrote in message news:3d2b18f1$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > Hi all,
    > In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem in
    > that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC

    class
    > libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    > benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the case
    > or am I confused?




  3. #3
    Danny Kalev Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?



    James Curran wrote:
    >
    > The .Net libraries are separate from MFC, but that doesn't mean that C++
    > is not part of the .Net. C++ is fully supported by .Net. MFC & .Net are
    > just targeted at different areas. (MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web
    > applications). Choose you platform based on your needs.


    BTW, what about the Standard Library? Does Managed C++ support it?

    Danny

  4. #4
    Mark Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    Hi all,

    Thanks for the feedback. The question then is - can one do a complete windows
    app in C++ .net without using MFC? i.e. Are all the .net libraries ported
    to C++ e.g. web forms etc or just the base classes.

    It seems that C++ can only really be used.net in C++ .net like you can with
    C#?


    Thanks
    Mark


    "James Curran" <jamescurran@mvps.org> wrote:
    > The .Net libraries are separate from MFC, but that doesn't mean that

    C++
    >is not part of the .Net. C++ is fully supported by .Net. MFC & .Net are
    >just targeted at different areas. (MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web
    >applications). Choose you platform based on your needs.
    >
    >--
    >Truth,
    >James Curran
    >www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)
    >www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
    >www.aurora-inc.com (Day job)
    >
    >
    >"mxc" <mxc@nospam.co.za> wrote in message news:3d2b18f1$1@10.1.10.29...
    >>
    >> Hi all,
    >> In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem

    in
    >> that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC

    >class
    >> libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    >> benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the

    case
    >> or am I confused?

    >
    >



  5. #5
    Henry Dreyfuss Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "James Curran" <jamescurran@mvps.org> wrote:
    > The .Net libraries are separate from MFC, but that doesn't mean that

    C++
    >is not part of the .Net. C++ is fully supported by .Net. MFC & .Net are
    >just targeted at different areas. (MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web
    >applications). Choose you platform based on your needs.
    >


    Wrong. Winforms are targeted at Win32 desktop apps too. Look at Petzold's
    new book - all C# and .NET. No C. No C++ or MFC. They intend for us to switch.

    >--


  6. #6
    Dennis Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    Save yourself a lot of trouble an move to Java, after all that's what Mickeysoft
    is trying to emulate. I still do C++, but chosen to "goto" :)
    a language based on logic rather than marketing.


    "mxc" <mxc@nospam.co.za> wrote:
    >
    >Hi all,
    >In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem

    in
    >that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC

    class
    >libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    >benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the case
    >or am I confused?



  7. #7
    Ted Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "Henry Dreyfuss" <hdreyfuss@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >"James Curran" <jamescurran@mvps.org> wrote:
    >> The .Net libraries are separate from MFC, but that doesn't mean that

    >C++
    >>is not part of the .Net. C++ is fully supported by .Net. MFC & .Net are
    >>just targeted at different areas. (MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web
    >>applications). Choose you platform based on your needs.
    >>

    >
    >Wrong. Winforms are targeted at Win32 desktop apps too. Look at Petzold's
    >new book - all C# and .NET. No C. No C++ or MFC. They intend for us to switch.
    >


    James is 100% correct. C++ is fully supported in .NET and will continue
    on that path for some time. The hiring of people like Stan Lippman, Herb
    Sutter, Don Box and Tim Ewald should give some indication of that. What
    does the Petzold book have to do with .NET not supporting C++?

  8. #8
    Chris Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "mxc" <mxc@nospam.co.za> wrote:
    >
    >Hi all,
    >In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem

    in
    >that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC

    class
    >libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    >benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the case
    >or am I confused?



  9. #9
    Alon Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    STL is not managed. Yet, Microsof claims there is enough functionalities that
    you don't need the STL.
    From my small experience, if the performance is your big issues, don't use
    the managed code.


    Shabbat Shalom.


    alon.


    Danny Kalev <dannykk@inter.net.il> wrote:
    >
    >
    >James Curran wrote:
    >>
    >> The .Net libraries are separate from MFC, but that doesn't mean that

    C++
    >> is not part of the .Net. C++ is fully supported by .Net. MFC & .Net

    are
    >> just targeted at different areas. (MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web
    >> applications). Choose you platform based on your needs.

    >
    >BTW, what about the Standard Library? Does Managed C++ support it?
    >
    >Danny



  10. #10
    ralph Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "Ted" <ttarney@dontbotherme.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Henry Dreyfuss" <hdreyfuss@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>"James Curran" <jamescurran@mvps.org> wrote:
    >>> The .Net libraries are separate from MFC, but that doesn't mean that

    >>C++
    >>>is not part of the .Net. C++ is fully supported by .Net. MFC & .Net

    are
    >>>just targeted at different areas. (MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web
    >>>applications). Choose you platform based on your needs.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Wrong. Winforms are targeted at Win32 desktop apps too. Look at Petzold's
    >>new book - all C# and .NET. No C. No C++ or MFC. They intend for us to

    switch.
    >>

    >
    >James is 100% correct. C++ is fully supported in .NET and will continue
    >on that path for some time. The hiring of people like Stan Lippman, Herb
    >Sutter, Don Box and Tim Ewald should give some indication of that. What
    >does the Petzold book have to do with .NET not supporting C++?


    I believe Henry would agree with you. What he was responding to was James's
    "(MFC=Win32-based EXEs; .Net= Web applications)" comment. And that is that
    a line between the frameworks is not so easily draw.

    One can make the argument that MFC is ill-suited for "Web" applications and
    .NET is better, but it is not true that .NET/WinForms is only useful for
    "Web" applications. By design and by plan .NET is targeted for the desktop
    as well.


  11. #11
    ralph Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "Dennis" <nomail@nomail.mars> wrote:
    >
    >Save yourself a lot of trouble an move to Java, after all that's what Mickeysoft
    >is trying to emulate. I still do C++, but chosen to "goto" :)
    >a language based on logic rather than marketing.
    >
    >
    >"mxc" <mxc@nospam.co.za> wrote:
    >>
    >>Hi all,
    >>In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem

    >in
    >>that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC

    >class
    >>libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    >>benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the case
    >>or am I confused?

    >


    LOL!

    "chosen to "goto" :) a language based on logic rather than marketing"!!!

    In what cave have you been in to have missed out on all the hype.

    First I believe you will find, after a little more experience in real-world
    applications, that Java is not quite as "logical" as it might seem after
    your first reading of "Java for Dummys".

    Perhaps you haven't heard - Java is dead in Windows. (It lives on with some
    legacy support, but it is just a matter of time.) Java still has some use
    in non-M$ environments where it serves the role of a "Visual Basic for non-Windows
    Programmers". Of course without Visual Basic's extra functionality and performance.

    Second, Java only survives because of "Sunny-soft", "Mickey-soft" drop-outs,
    and marketing. It only works in situations where there is no alternative,
    by management-edict, or where quality and service-levels can be measured
    as "good-enough".

    My advice - stick with C++.


  12. #12
    Ovidiu Platon Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

    "Dennis" <nomail@nomail.mars> wrote in message news:3d376257$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > Save yourself a lot of trouble an move to Java, after all that's what

    Mickeysoft
    > is trying to emulate. I still do C++, but chosen to "goto" :)
    > a language based on logic rather than marketing.
    >

    Or, even better, save yourself from switching a good, but obsolete
    technology such as Java and get the .NET SDK. You can also work with C/C++
    whenever you need to (for performance reasons, for example).
    Best regards,
    Ovidiu.



  13. #13
    James Curran Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

    "Dennis" <nomail@nomail.mars> wrote in message news:3d376257$1@10.1.10.29...
    > Save yourself a lot of trouble an move to Java, after all that's what

    Mickeysoft
    > is trying to emulate. I still do C++, but chosen to "goto" :)
    > a language based on logic rather than marketing.
    >


    First of all, A far better argument can be made C# is an attempt to
    improve on Java rather the "emulate" it.

    Further, there is *far* more marketing behind Java then there is behind
    C#. (Sun tried, and pretty much succeeded, in selling Java to the
    population at large. MS directed it's attention to selling C# to developers
    alone).


    --
    Truth,
    James Curran
    www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)
    www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
    www.aurora-inc.com (Day job)





  14. #14
    Danny Kalev Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?



    Dennis wrote:
    >
    > Save yourself a lot of trouble an move to Java, after all that's what Mickeysoft
    > is trying to emulate. I still do C++, but chosen to "goto" :)
    > a language based on logic rather than marketing.


    which language is that? Java? What kind of logic exactly is there in
    expressions such as

    GregorianCalendar lastCheckedOxygen = new GregorianCalendar(); //56
    chars

    When in C++, you'd write

    GregorianCalendar lastCheckedOxygen; //34 chars

    Considering that about half of your Java code consists of objects'
    creation, this really a stupid language design decision and a major
    annoyance to programmers.
    And don't get me started about their "generic" containers and algorithms
    that force you to use ugly typecasts all over the place.

    Java on Windows is dead. Unless you think JDK 1.1.4 is better than C++
    or C#, there's really arguing about the preferable choice these days, at
    least on Windows.

    Danny

  15. #15
    Danny Kalev Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?



    Alon wrote:
    >
    > STL is not managed. Yet, Microsof claims there is enough functionalities that
    > you don't need the STL.


    I see. They still haven't figured out how to support generics, they have
    neither STL nor templates, and yet there's "enough functionality". I bet
    they're referring to those heinous CByteArray, CFloatArray and so on
    containers...

    If there's "enough functionality"
    > From my small experience, if the performance is your big issues, don't use
    > the managed code.


    I've suspected Managed Code all along...

    Kol Tuv,

    Danny

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center