home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: in1.uu.net!tandem!usenet
- From: Anatoli Mandelchtam <tolik@tarley_pc.loc201.tandem.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Visual C++
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 20:15:10 -0800
- Organization: Tandem Computers Inc., Cupertino, CA
- Message-ID: <30F33D4E.27A2@tarley_pc.loc201.tandem.com>
- References: <4cka82$rmm@news.tamu.edu> <4cs7le$963@ornews.intel.com> <4cumsj$o9t@btree.brooktree.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: miket_home1.fnord.tandem.com
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b4 (Win95; I)
-
- Alex Bakaev wrote:
- .>
- .> thurman_b_miller@ccm2.hf.intel.com (Thurman Miller) wrote:
- .>
- .> >skp2813@cs.tamu.edu (Sriram K Parameswar) wrote:
- .>
- .> [deleted]
- .> >If you are planning on
- .> >writing applications for Windows or NT, I'd go with C++, strictly for
- .> >the MFC library (Microsoft Foundation Class) which is the same source
- .> >that Windows 95 & NT were written in.
- .>
- .> Utter rubbish. Show me at least one Win95 or Win NT component written
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- .> in MFC. Stop this mindless promotion of MFC, please. At least in the
- .> C++ newsgroup.
- .>
- .> >Thurman
- .>
- .> Alex
-
- Wordpad 1.0 for Windows 95. But, I guess, you _are_ right and MFC should
- be discussed some place else.
-