JC> Chase "RAD" that's fashionable this month, and whatever becomes
 CA> Let's not forget what RAD means: Rapid Application 
 CA> Development. Why is it, that a RAD tool absolutely have 
 CA> to wrap the code into a beefed up drag'n drop 
 CA> userinterface? Everybody knows that, the most time, in 
Why?  Because it's more object-oriented that way.  :-)
 CA> a programming project is spend with some problems 
 CA> concerning, usually, very few lines of code, that just 
 CA> /wont/ behave. It is not the userinterface design, that eats your time.
So far for me it has been.  :-)
 CA> For me MFC was the natural RAD tool, not in spite of, 
 CA> but because, it is a relatively thin wrapper around the 
 CA> API code. Almost everything I know from API programming 
Sure, that has its advantages.  But is it really "good"?  It's definately not 
OO (well not OO-enough for me anyway) if it encourages you to avoid its own 
methods in favour of using the actual Win API.
OTOH, the "thinness" of the wrapper easily makes a much easier learning 
curve...
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------