home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: druid.borland.com!usenet
- From: pete@borland.com (Pete Becker)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: OWL or not
- Date: 23 Mar 1996 18:10:19 GMT
- Organization: Borland International
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <4j1eqb$dpc@druid.borland.com>
- References: <233247.2503056@online.idg.se>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pbecker.borland.com
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
- X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5
-
- In article <233247.2503056@online.idg.se>, Rikard_K.S._Hedstrom@online.idg.se
- says...
- >
- >Hello!
- >
- >I have bought Borland C++ 4.0 and try to learn to use it for Windows
- >programming. Borland tries to make me use Object Windows and provides
- >therefore two big manuals on that subject.
-
- Borland does not try to make you use OWL. It's up to you how you want to write
- Windows programs. There's lots of documentation out there about using the
- Windows API, which is, after all, part of the Windows operating system.
-
- >But is Object Windows a standard
- >in modern programming or do most programmers use the traditional API?
-
- Depends in part on what you mean by "a standard". Lots of people use OWL to
- write very powerful applications. In general, an application framework can save
- you from lots of tedious work in dealing with the Windows API. If you've looked
- at Petzold's book, his example of a hello world program is about 100 lines of
- code using the Windows API. In OWL a similar program is about three lines.
-
-