On Thursday 20 November 2003 09:20, Sumeet Singh Parmar wrote:
(B> > moving. Until then, I really like MFC and .NET for rapid, feature-rich
(B> > development.
(B>
(B> Thanks for the laugh Ric. I recommend to you the book 'After the Gold Rush'
(B> and do look at the project progress chapter. MFC/.Net gets you into a mess
(B> rapidly with its bloat-feature crap.
(B>
(B> I don't understand why programmers insist on code generation tools.
(B> Software is a thoughtful process. RAD is a moniker for clueless managers.
(B>
(B> Ric, the test for you is: name me three design patterns that you've used in
(B> your projects.
(B
(BThat's a bit unfair. I've been give a project to complete by yesterday that
(Bmust run on Windows. You think straight C with the straight Win32 API is the
(Bway to go? A Win32 guru could probably beat me in the end, but a .NET guru
(Bwould beet the Win32 guru too.
(B
(BBesides talking about MFC & .NET as code generation tools is purely wrong. The
(Bstandard IDE (VC) guides you into using code generation tools but it is
(Bdefinately not a requirement.
(B
(BDesign patterns? I can't give you the well-known names, but I have definately
(Bused three:
(B* prototyping
(B* use cases
(B* ui logic data
(B
(BForgive me if any of the above are not design patterns but I quit university
(Bafter 6 months. I've read many books, though, and use the good stuff even if
(BI don't bother to remember who invented the methods. I don't need to remember
(Bbecause I'll never be tested on it.
(B
(BJason
(B
(B--
(B[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
