home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: druid.borland.com!usenet
- From: Conrad Herrmann <cherrmann@wpo.borland.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: MFC or OWL?
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 11:22:05 -0800
- Organization: Borland International
- Message-ID: <3156F25D.3F09@wpo.borland.com>
- References: <DKKv8H.K35@iquest.net> <4i8od1$clt@Steinlager.tip.net> <4ipmh6$79g@btree.brooktree.com> <1996Mar25.132903.546@friend.kastle.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: walden.borland.com
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0GoldB1 (WinNT; I)
-
- Richard Krehbiel wrote:
- > Says virtually all Windows C++ compiler vendors. Apparently they are
- > beginning to agree with Microsoft's assertion that MFC is a de-facto
- > standard, because they are all licensing MFC for inclusion in their
- > compiler products.
-
- This is only because the other vendors (really, only two) simply
- could not compete on their own, and both MS and they saw
- licensing MFC as an opportunity to compete with Borland. Even
- if other vendors license and include MFC, that does not mean
- that those vendors, who each have small market share, will
- increase their market share much.
-
- To be honest, this is not a bad strategy for either, but it's
- premature to say that the game is over. For instance, Watcom
- (who will now turn into Optima++) will no longer pursue MFC as a
- primary platform in favor of their own component-oriented
- framework.
-
- Borland C++ 5.0 supports MFC because many C++ programmers prefer
- the Borland environment but have to maintain programs that were
- developed using MFC.
-
- --Conrad Herrmann
- (Borland C++)
- P.S. While BC++ 5.0 supports compiling MFC, it does not actually
- include the code.
-