home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!news
- From: James Saunders <saunders@cfm.ohio-state.edu>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: MFC v.s. OWL class libraries
- Date: 2 Jan 1996 15:54:34 GMT
- Organization: The Center for Mapping
- Message-ID: <4cbkfq$255@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: wagner.cfm.ohio-state.edu
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
-
- Would somebody please comment on the relative strengths and weaknesses of
- these two class libraries?
- I am curious to know if MFC is becoming the library of choice for windows
- development.
- We currently use BC++ 4.52, and we are considering getting VC++ 4.0 for
- future development, mainly because the MFCes appears to be more widely
- used for current development, and this is likely to become more true.
- Are we wrong in our conclusions?
-
-
- --
- James W. Saunders saunders@cfm.ohio-state.edu
- The Ohio State University Center for Mapping
- 1216 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212
- phone: 614-688-3134 fax 614-292-8062
-
-
-