Peter Fitzsimmons wrote in a message to Brian Haeffner:

 PF> Says you....I think OWL is actually used more.

OWL may be of substantially higher quality, but MFC is definitely more popular.

 PF> I don't like either of them.

OWL is not bad.  You can do things with it that would take forever using
the direct APIs, and it really will give you reasonable portability across
Win16, Win32, and OS/2 PM.  I find it amazing that MFC is not even capable
of working portably across Win16 and Win32.

 PF> I do expect MFC to be supported -- or at least all of the
 PF> Win32 apis required for you to compile it yourself -- in the
 PF> not to distant future. 

I am not sure, but MFC may rely on some undocumented Win32 API calls.  It
certainly relies on some undocumented return codes from some of the Win32
API.
 
-- Mike


---