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

Rosimildo da Silva rdasilva at connecttel.com
Thu Mar 22 14:01:19 UTC 2001

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
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/

More information about the users mailing list