I have three questions about MFC and their use in Visual C++ 2005.

Firstly. Can one actually use the MFC in C++? I have taken a look at the internet and almost all the information seems to indicate that it, along with win API, is for use with C. There has been many indications that it works with c++ as well but I thought it would be better to make sure.

Secondly. Is it possible to bypass the common language runtime and still end up with a graphical user interface? It seems as if the win32 console application does not use the common language runtime? I am going to get VC++ 2005 prof edition shortly and one tutorial said that one has to select win32 GUI and not win32 console in order to use MFC. The problem is that that tutorial had been aimed at C# but I am asuming that the prof. edition VC++ 2005 might also have an option for Win32 GUIs. If it has and I select it as a project then will I bypass the common language runtime? And if it does bypass the common language runtime can i still develop a GUI using the MFC or even win API?

Thirdly. Can anyone suggest some good books on MFC?

>Can one actually use the MFC in C++?
I can't imagine how you've been studying MFC without realizing that it's a C++ library.

>Is it possible to bypass the common language runtime and still end up
>with a graphical user interface?
I sure hope so, otherwise all of the programs that were written prior to 2000 would completely fail to work.

>Can one actually use the MFC in C++?
I can't imagine how you've been studying MFC without realizing that it's a C++ library.

lol. firstly thank you. Secondly sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Or at least that is how the saying goes. I believe that it is the opposite.

But i have to say that all the c++ programs which i have done up until now did not have GUIs. I developed visual basic screens for them and invoked them with the shell command. So i have not studied any GUIs MFC or otherwise for c++.

>Is it possible to bypass the common language runtime and still end up
>with a graphical user interface?
I sure hope so, otherwise all of the programs that were written prior to 2000 would completely fail to work.

I am not sure that Microsoft would care. Bill Gates continuously finds ways of letting computer users pay for the same thing over and over. It seems that with dot net he has finally managed to bring computer proffesionals into the fold as well. Not letting something work is a good way of being paid for it again.

Anyway I really appreciate your reply.

>Secondly sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I have to resort to the lowest form of wit for you to appreciate it.

>So i have not studied any GUIs MFC or otherwise for c++.
You've done research on MFC and indicated that as far as you can tell, it was for meant for C. That means your research was extremely limited, or you simply didn't read for comprehension.

>I am not sure that Microsoft would care.
That's utter BS. Microsoft puts a lot of effort into backward compatibility. It goes to the point of patching the OS to work around a special case of a single application that did the wrong thing in the first place just to keep people like you from blaming Microsoft for a crappy application that they didn't even write.

>Not letting something work is a good way of being paid for it again.
Not letting something work is a good way to go out of business. You don't seem to understand that if you break things in a new system that worked on the old system, nobody will want to use the new system.

Comments
Honesty is the best policy

> Bill Gates continuously finds ways of letting computer users pay for
> the same thing over and over.
Amen to that. ;-)

BTW, quintoncoert I hope you do realize that the '>' are there for a reason. They are used for quoting text. Your use of '>' makes your post confusing to read.

You should do something like:

>>Can one actually use the MFC in C++?
>I can't imagine how you've been studying MFC without realizing
> that it's a C++ library.

lol. firstly thank you. Secondly sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Or at least that is how the saying goes. I believe that it is the opposite.

But i have to say that all the c++ programs which i have done up until now did not have GUIs. I developed visual basic screens for them and invoked them with the shell command. So i have not studied any GUIs MFC or otherwise for c++.

>>Is it possible to bypass the common language runtime and still
>>end up with a graphical user interface?
>I sure hope so, otherwise all of the programs that were written
>prior to 2000 would completely fail to work.

I am not sure that Microsoft would care. Bill Gates continuously finds ways of letting computer users pay for the same thing over and over.

Thirdly. Can anyone suggest some good books on MFC?

If you donno anything this is usually a good starting point. :)
Visual C++ 6 for Dummies
Although I personally prefer "the internet" to learn basics and books for more in-depth stuff..

IMHO, when reading dummies book, you are a dummy when you start the book, and a dummy who thinks he knows everything when you end it...

>Not letting something work is a good way of being paid for it again.
Not letting something work is a good way to go out of business. You don't seem to understand that if you break things in a new system that worked on the old system, nobody will want to use the new system.

Generally I would agree, but Vista is another matter -- there are lots of programs that will not run under Vista that worded ok with XP, including one of my favorate games -- Diablo LOD -- which will not be upgraded to work with Vista.

quintoncoert: As for MFC -- every time Microsoft upgraded it to a new version it became better and with more new features. Its vary rare that Microsoft removed a feature, but it has happened. I recently converted about 15 MFC programs from VC++ 6.0 to VC++ 2005 and only encountered a few porting problems that were unrelated to MFC. The only porting problems I know of is between platforms, such as porting a desktop application that runs under XP or Vista to a wireless such as Pocket PC or Microsoft Mobile 5.0. There are definite differences between those two platforms.

>Generally I would agree, but Vista is another matter
No, it's not. Just because there are compatibility issues doesn't mean Microsoft isn't trying hard to resolve them. I'd be willing to bet that not supporting a program that worked on XP is the most extreme last resort.

This article has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.