Peter Fitzsimmons wrote in a message to Mats Wallin:

 MW> Or am I completely wrong when I thought that most new 
 MW> applications that are developed today, uses some type 
 MW> of application framework, such as MFC, OWL, etc.?

 PF> That would be a shame if it were true -- both of those are
 PF> proprietary,and lock you in to one vendor.  I have a feeling
 PF> the most popular use of these two is with hobbyists,  not
 PF> for commercial use.

MFC is widely used for commercial development as if it was a rapid
application development tool, somewhat more professional than Visual BASIC.
 Although code size does increase with the use of an application framework,
there is no speed penalty to speak of.  I do not like MFC, but this is
because I think it is just badly designed, especially in comparison with
OWL.

However, I do not consider either one to be especially appropriate for
hobbyists.  It is the professionals to whom time is money who are most able
to benefit from an application framework, while the hobbyists are perfectly
happy to spend hours optimizing Windows programs written in assembly
language.

 PF> I frequently review/recommend (or more often reject) tools
 PF> for large Banks etc;  the first test a product must pass is
 PF> "openness".  It must be compilable with more than one
 PF> compiler.

This is reasonable, but many users of MFC or OWL are comparing it with
something more in the class of Visual BASIC or Delphi.  I think most banks
end up choosing Galaxy simply because it is the most expensive!  Besides,
MFC is supported at least on MS Visual C++, Watcom C++, and on Symantec
C++.
 
-- Mike


---