quality of MFC (Was: Re: Rtems and C++ -- code examples?)

[Rosimildo da Silva]

Herman Bruyninckx wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Rosimildo da Silva wrote:
> 
> >
> > Good point. MFC is another peace of *crap*. MFC has been done
> > by people that have no clue what OO is all about.
> >
> This might be a bit off-topic, but do you have some URLs where such a
> critical evaluation of MFC is explained in some more detail? I would
> love to use it to counteract the ongoing migration in our department
> to everything that MS is promoting...
> And when I see that more and more people tend to use it for
> ``embedded'' applications....


I have been luck, because I have been working with a worderful team,
that I had no problems make them see that MFC was crap. They saw it,
by themselves.
Hint: You need a very trained OO team in order to take advantages 
of OO. My experience has been that the majority of people using 
C++, they use it as a *safer C*. For embedded engineers, this
is actually almost 100%.


So, regarding your question:

Easy: go to  http://www.google.com/

and search for: MFC and CRAP and OO

and follow the links.


I can tell you in one paragraph what is crap about MFC:

  + lack of abstraction
  + no encapsulation ( well they encapsulate the Window handle )
  + Macros everywhere
  + No polymorfism
  + Nothing, Nada, Zilch, of OO principles.


The MFC framework, Document-View has been designed by the "MS Word
Team".
It is "ok" to write editors. It is crap to write anything else.

Good luck.
-- 
Rosimildo da Silva            rdasilva at connectel.com 
ConnectTel, Inc.              Austin, TX -- USA      
Phone : 512-338-1111          Fax : 512-918-0449     
Company Page:  http://www.connecttel.com             
Home Page:     http://members.nbci.com/rosimildo/