NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/mswindo/programm/misc/4413

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc:4413 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools:1793
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!news.ans.net!cmcl2!panix!rryan
From: [e-mail] (Rob Ryan)
Subject: Re: MFC and Borland IDE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:47:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Panix, NYC
Lines: 50

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Grant) writes:

>    Did anyone write it using plain C and the Windows API?  It
>    would be nice to have those numbers for comparison also.

Having written lots of plain old C and a few largish MFC applications, I
would hazard a guess that the number of lines of code would be much higher
for the C code (than the MFC code, at least, and presumably the OWL code
too) and that the size of the executable wouldn't be that much smaller
than that of MFC.

MFC is a "wrapper" for the Windows API, meaning that it gives you easy
access to the API without too much overhead.  Clearly, for users that want a
cross platform (Windows, DOS, Macs, Suns, etc.) class library, a thin
wrapper around a particular platform's API won't do the trick.  But, then
again, given OWL's dependency on Borland-specific DDVTs, it's unlikely to
become a cross platform standard either.  OWL abstracts the programmer
away from the API a little more (arguably making it easier for beginners),
but I've heard OWL programmers suggest that you eventually have to become
familiar with the Windows API anyway, minimizing this advantage in my view.

For those C++ programmers who are used to doing C Windows development, MFC
is a great boon (though I still think the compiler stinks...painfully slow
and still a DOS application).  But having written MFC apps, I'm a convert to
Microsoft's class library.  The code seems efficient, small, and safe (i.e.
C++ protection and abstraction at it's best) and the source is a lot cleaner
than my old C stuff (and I prided myself as being a good, stylistically
speaking, C programmer).

Now, if Microsoft could just get a development environment that's as nice
as Borland's, I'd be happy.  PWB and CL is for cave men (though some might
argue that "real programmers don't eat quiche or use IDEs").  Personally,
I think Borland's development environment/tools are wonderful.

(P.S. I don't mean to start an OWL vs. MFC flame war here.  They're too
different paradigms, of which MFC suits my background and expectations
better.  OWL is good as well, though.  I just wanted to emphasize that
anyone still programming in C should *really* look into class libraries and
C++ development.  It save a lot of time and is well worth the investment if
you're doing any serious development.  And, if overhead is a concern, MFC
presents minimal overhead while offering tremendous OOP advantages.  It
should also be pointed out that although the OWL executables are bigger (and
if linked dynamically, may require those 3 DLLs), I've heard that the actual
run-time footprint (resources used and RAM consumed) isn't that bad.  It's
not like running in Visual Basic or anything.  The executables may be big,
but the code is still pretty efficient.)

--
 Rob Ryan
    [e-mail]