>Yes, we've all heard this before. Everything and anything from Microsoft
>is inferior.
Not true.
>This is a view commonly held by many MS bashers who have
>never had to do any serious development, and deliver real product.
Ouch! Why don't you just call me a worthless hack who never wrote a decent
line of code in his life? Every real product I've written for Windows (3.0,
3.1, 3.11, 95 and 98 plus a few DOS apps) have been mostly written using non
MS products. Any 'real' products my company sells (Windows or Palm based)
has applications written by me. Personal attacks are not called for.
Generalizations are uncalled for. I never wrote anything degrading anyone
who uses MS development products. I am not a 'basher' my point is to
explain there are alot of developers who do not use VC++ nor wish to.
>Why is it then that virtually all Windows products are Microsoft Foundation
>Class based and built using Microsoft Visual C++?
For the same reason if I created a popular OS had 1 billion dollars everyone
would have to use DFC (Dave Foundation Classes) to write their apps. Alot
of Win apps are MFC based. But not all were compiled using VC++.
>By the way, Borland with its much better and easier to use tools,
>effectively went out of business some time ago.
Not true. Delphi and C++ Builder are kicking butt.
>They were never able to keep up with the rapidly
>expanding feature set of the Windows OS.
Its hard to keep up with an OS you don't have any control over and the owner
of that OS can release development products before you even get the specs
for the latest OS version. It may be unfair but such is life.
>Finally lets not spend a lot of effort on compiler independence. It is a
>goal that has never been achieved.
Not true. Source code is compiler independent (mostly) I can compile MFC
code with Borland and it will run just fine. The snag is the conduit
libraries compiled using MFC. The libs are only compatible with VC++. Give
me the source and I can use any MFC compliant compiler (such as C++ Builder)
>We are familiar with MSVC, we do all of our
>Windows work using MSVC,
So continue to use it. I find I can be much more productive with Borland
products (alot more productive)
>Why is it then that virtually all Windows products are Microsoft Foundation
>Class based and built using Microsoft Visual C++?
Do you know that for a fact? My last two commercial MFC projects were
compiled using Borland. MFC is not limited to VC++ alone. There are other
systems that use it. The problem is the linker used to make the libs.
Microsoft changes its format with almost every release. (One reason you
can't debug conduits with VC++ 6.0). If MS would stick to one format, in
time, everyone would be happy. Compiler independence would be just about
there.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Cyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Visual C++ 6.0 and CDK 3.0
>
>Yes, we've all heard this before. Everything and anything from Microsoft
>is inferior. This is a view commonly held by many MS bashers who have
>never had to do any serious development, and deliver real product. Why
>is it then that virtually all Windows products are Microsoft Foundation
>Class based and built using Microsoft Visual C++?
>
>By the way, Borland with its much better and easier to use tools,
>effectively went out of business some time ago. Borland had a good thing
>going years ago when they introduced Turbo Pascal for the IBM PC. Again
>the raised the bar with Borland C and its visual IDE. After that they
>fell behind badly. They were never able to keep up with the rapidly
>expanding feature set of the Windows OS.
>
>Finally lets not spend a lot of effort on compiler independence. It is a
>goal that has never been achieved. Even Java, with its anywhere anytime
>mantra, is splintering. We are familiar with MSVC, we do all of our
>Windows work using MSVC, we would much rather see Palm devote its limited
>resources to improving the Palm targetted application development tools.
>
>
