-> DT> And the only reason to use MFC anymore is if someone is forcing
-> you to DT> use it, like your boss, or your wife.  Other than that,
-> snap to the DT> present and use a component centric Library...
-> Hardly.  First of all, some of us have what's sometimes referred to
-> as "legacy code" - I.e. something that's already written in MFC, and
-> is far easier to maintain than rewrite in the library of the month.
Hummm...  I would rather use the Lib of the month, than the lib of
the past.  Besides, it is not the libs of the month, but the libs of the
future...  And the furute is now!
-> Second, if you really know MFC well, there's no question that you can
-> be more productive with it than you can with another library that you
-> don't know as well.
True, but let us say, you DO NOT know MFC.  Should you spend all the
time it takes to learn MFC, rather than use a modern Library?  Besides,
it is only a matter of time before you get VC++ 6 or so which will be
RAD as well.  Are you one of those people who will not move into the
present until Microsoft says it is ok?
-> Third, most libraries are quite good at some things, and quite poor
-> at others.  Depending on the sorts of things you work with, you may
-> derive little benefit from many many libraries, above or beyond the
-> relatively simple UI areas that MFC handles quite well.
Point here is that I have used most libs, and OCL (Optima++) and VCL
(Borland) are just as equal, even surpass MFC.  Microsoft themselves
said MFC has no where to go...
Oh, and if you want to debate LEGACY code, I will state that OWL is more
OOP and much more encapsulated than MFC...  But that is debating
History, is it not?
                Dave - zanti@pacbell.net
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0218
---------------