Visual C++ Book
in [MFC]
|
Prev: DoModal Broken in Debug Mode in VS2005 SP1
Next: Default beep when clicking in list control on Vista
From: Tom Serface on 31 Mar 2007 23:49 Hi David, Unless I needed it "today" I'm not sure I'd start another WinForms application. The new WPF stuff looks way more cool to work with. I haven't done an application with it yet, but I'd sure give it a look if I were starting one soon. Mike's book is the definitive source in my opinion. I still reference the one from MFC 4 :o) Tom "David Ching" <dc(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message news:P4EPh.20219$uo3.11584(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > BTW, how easy is it to repurpose a WinForms app into a WebForms app on > ASP.NET? I am writing a desktop WinForms app but can see how there would > be a commercial advantage to also have it as a WebForms app. Is it simple > to port a WinForms app to a WebForms app to have both a desktop and > browser-based version? > > > Oh, if you're that advanced, Professional MFC With Visual C++ 6 by Mike > Blaszczak is the authoritative manual (and an easy read too). He wrote a > large part of MFC and in fact was the sole maintaner of MFC for several > years. Here's an Amazon link to it, although I'm sorry you cannot > purchase books from them. > http://www.amazon.com/Professional-MFC-Visual-C++-6/dp/1861000154 > > -- David >
From: Tom Serface on 31 Mar 2007 23:50 Gone to the dark side eh? Well, if there's no comparison, then there is no need to continue comparing them. Tom "Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1175389534.216891.286170(a)e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > IMHO, C++ as a language is ancient compared to C#. There is just no > comparison. > > --- > Ajay > >
From: David Ching on 1 Apr 2007 00:05 "Tom Serface" <tom.nospam(a)camaswood.com> wrote in message news:9F51EFA7-A5C0-4EF3-B90E-36E91AC07BC0(a)microsoft.com... > Gone to the dark side eh? Well, if there's no comparison, then there is > no need to continue comparing them. > LOL, I think C# is much more elegant and lacking of complexity (I mean, just read the code, there is no superfluous junk characters in it to confuse you, the meaning just leaps out at you), whereas the various C++ community seems to take great delight in seeing how complicated looking they can make the latest syntax. OTOH, I am reading Advanced C# by Trey Nash which tells of best practices, and there is a TON of stuff to learn regarding IDisposable, threading, exception handling, etc. before one can claim to be proficient in C#. I'm starting to understand why a lot of expert C# programmers say they wish WinForms apps weren't so simple, because it makes it easy to do things wrong. -- David
From: David Ching on 1 Apr 2007 00:52 "Tom Serface" <tom.nospam(a)camaswood.com> wrote in message news:82DFA40D-B93D-4159-87BE-001FD9B35F1E(a)microsoft.com... > Unless I needed it "today" I'm not sure I'd start another WinForms > application. The new WPF stuff looks way more cool to work with. I > haven't done an application with it yet, but I'd sure give it a look if I > were starting one soon. > Well, there are a couple reasons for not embracing WPF now. The fact is the WPF market is immature. There are no WPF component libraries available. The design tools to deliver compelling WPF UI's are still in CTP state. OTOH, the WinForms market is quite mature and is currently the best way to write Windows UI's, IMHO. And any investment in WinForms carries over to WPF as there will be interop components, and the methodology is similar (or so I'm told). Secondly, WPF requires .NET 3.0 which is not redistributed with Vista. > Mike's book is the definitive source in my opinion. I still reference the > one from MFC 4 :o) > It's a great book all right, but it really only helped me once. The rest of the time I got my knowledge from other sources. Probably because I got it after the MFC market had peaked and I had considerable info under my belt already. -- David
From: MrAsm on 1 Apr 2007 05:58
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:18:23 GMT, "David Ching" <dc(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote: > But I'm curious, have you actually *tried* doing something >non-trivial in C#, or have you just read about it? Hi David, no, I'm sure I don't have the same experience and knowledge of C# that you have. I'm just learning C# writing simple test apps (I like learning in small pieces), so I didn't write anything non-trivial in C#. I'm still in learning mode, and in fact I'm trying the VC#2005 Express (a great gift by Microsoft to C# learners!). I respect your opinion that you like differentiating between instance data member (.), pointed instance data member (->), and namespaces (::). To all of us C++ programmers, it seems very clear because we are used to that for years. But I think that the "spirit" of C# is very different from the spirit of C++, I think that the spirit of C# is about *simplification*, like Java. Of course, there are also some negative points about that. For example, I like the deterministic finalization of C++, i.e. that a destructor is automatically called when a function/method/block is terminated ("}"). So, if I access a resource e.g. a file with a File class with a destructor that closes the file, I know that the file is closed (the resource is released) when the block ends. On the other side, it seems to me that I have to force the resource release in C# (something like explicitly calling a method like File.Close). I read about this IDisposable interface, but I did not go very deep with it. However, I believe that, when memory constraints or resource management do matter, when top performance is a must, etc. - as I wrote in another post - C++ is the way to go. But, in these cases, I would also not consider the managed world of .NET, but simply go *native* with C++ and MFC. MrAsm |