Organization: Skidmore College: Math & Computer Science Dept.
Message-ID: <4ganap$p17@saims.skidmore.edu>
References: <00001a81+0000a473@msn.com>
Reply-To: pvonk@skidmore.edu (Pierre von Kaenel)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pvonk.skidmore.edu
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.02
In <00001a81+0000a473@msn.com>, Tony_Bateman@msn.com (Tony Bateman) writes:
>I have Borland C++ V4.5, and whilst the documentation that comes with
>it is extensive and comprehensive, I would feel more comfortable
>teaching myself with a "Teach yourself....in 21 Days" type book.
>
Actually, the Teach yourself ... in 21 days is a good book, if you like to learn using the case study approach. And this book does a good job of it.
>Does anybody have any ecommendations?
>
>Secondly, how does OWL fare against the MFC provided by Microsoft?
>Does OWL support a more disciplined approach to OOP?
I've been told that MFC is a more "low-level" approach and OWL is more OOP.
Opinions anyone??
>
>Thirdly (perhaps I should have asked this first); with the recent
>announcement of Microsoft licensing the MFC to Borland, would my time
>be better spent learning how to use the MFC?
>
THis is a good question - one I'd like answered, since I don't want to continue one "standard" when it is dying a slow death. My impression is that MFC is becoming (if not already) THE standard. But there are still a lot of OWL programmers out there.
>My objective is to teach myself good OOP discipline, not quick
