On (29 Mar 97) David Torrez wrote to Jerry Coffin...
 DT> Hummm...  I would rather use the Lib of the month, than the lib of
 DT> the past.  Besides, it is not the libs of the month, but the libs of
 DT> the future...  And the furute is now!
 You sound like a cross between the Red Queen from Alice in
Wonderland, and an Ad for the Army - "We belive more unbelievable hype
before breakfast than most people do all year!"
 DT> True, but let us say, you DO NOT know MFC.  Should you spend all the
 DT> time it takes to learn MFC, rather than use a modern Library?
That depends on what you wish to achieve.  If your primary aim is to
brag about using a library nobody else has even heard of yet, MFC is a
poor choice.  OTOH, if you're interested primarily in doing your job
well, MFC can be an excellent choice.
The only reasoanble word I can think of for describing one as distinctly
more or less "modern" than another is "ridiculous."  Frankly, your
comments sound like somebody commenting on the latest fasions from Paris
than anybody trying to make a reasonable, rational decision about tools.
 DT> Besides,
 DT> it is only a matter of time before you get VC++ 6 or so which will be
 DT> RAD as well.  Are you one of those people who will not move into the
 DT> present until Microsoft says it is ok?
I'm one of those people who makes rational decisions based on facts
rather than spending all my type reading ads and going for whatever has
the most hype at the moment.
The lib of the month is the programming equivalent of the leisure suit.
MFC is the programming equivalent of blue jeans.
Personally, I wore straight hair and blue jeans, even when an afro and a
leisure suit was "the future."  I may not have been the height of
fashion, but nobody laughs when they look at old pictures of me either.
 -> 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.
 DT> Point here is that I have used most libs, and OCL (Optima++) and VCL
 DT> (Borland) are just as equal, even surpass MFC.  Microsoft themselves
 DT> said MFC has no where to go...
They're each clearly inferior to MFC on a number of points.  Any claim
to the contrary is simply a display of ignorance.
 DT> Oh, and if you want to debate LEGACY code, I will state that OWL is
 DT> more OOP and much more encapsulated than MFC...  But that is
 DT> debating History, is it not?
State anything you like.  It won't change reality.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Consider a bit of history: Borland has had (in chronological order)
TurboVision, OWL 1, OWL 2 and VCL.  None of these has had more than
minimal compatibility with the one that preceded it.  It appears
likely to me that VCL will continue that tradition: what follows it will
be completely incompatible again.
Consider a bit of parallel history.  Over roughly the same period of
time, MS has had several versions of MFC.  Every MFC 1.0 progam I have
compiles and links as a 32 bit program with VC++ 4.2/MFC 4.2 with
absolutely NO source code modifications AT ALL.
Chase "RAD" that's fashionable this month, and whatever becomes
fashionable next month if you will.  Preach OOP Puritanism if like.
I tend toward pragmatism, and until I tend to stick with things that
work until I see results to match the hype about the latest rage.
    Later,
    Jerry.
... The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
--- PPoint 1.90
---------------