Re: Unicode setting question
Dave, when you say "WinForms" are you meaning WinForms with C#? You have
mentioned it several times in combination with MFC and I thought you meant
the MFC version of WinForms vs. the typical MFC resources and I couldn't
figure out why you thought anyone used that :o)
If you mean C#/WinForms/WPF is catching on I can't argue with that. I do
about 75% C# programming these days and 25% MFC. I could go either way, but
my company really seems to be disliking MFC more and more regardless of how
much I fight for it. It's mostly a matter of tools. The IDE tools work so
much better with C# than with C++ that every naturally thinks C# is easier.
The syntax is easier, but VB was easier than C++ 10 years ago and we still
used C++ because of the performance. I don't know how many C# applications
will eventually start to clunk when large data sets and memory requirements
are thrown at them, but my C++ program has trouble sometimes even handling
things like lists of 500K files. I can't imagine what C# would do with a
500K element string array. I can't imagine how it could do better than C++.
For quick little "display the forms and hook to my database" applications C#
is way better imo. The tools you get with .NET are great and the interface
looks fine and the programmers don't mind using it because it doesn't seem
as much like a toy as VB did.
Tom
"David Ching" <dc@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6In0k.2191$89.854@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Scott McPhillips [MVP]" <org-dot-mvps-at-scottmcp> wrote in message
news:e9B3yI2wIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
David Ching wrote:
As for COBOL guys being highly in demand... you can only take so much
maintenance work in a dead environment (with no innovation or input
from the best and brightest in the industry) before you burn out, no
matter how highly paid you are. They're not in an enviable position at
all.
My COBOL-maintaining friend would disagree with you. His position is
pretty enviable and his life is far from any dismal, "burnt out" state.
You are correct, though, that C++ is a long way from "maintain only"
status. In fact, I don't foresee it at all. MFC, on the other hand ...
David's point is important, but becomes unimportant somewhere around age
65 :)
I suppose "burnt out" is not what I meant. I guess I meant "bored". But
no matter if you're burned out or bored, the fact that James' friend works
"only when he wants it" might be taken that he is indeed missing the
excitement of innovation that has long left the scene. (Or not... values
can change when work becomes financially an option instead of a
requirement.)
At 65, a guy like you Scott has re-proven yourself way more times than it
counts, and you don't have to conquor new mountains for everyone to know
what a master you are! :-) Or more to the point, you don't have to prove
to yourself anymore.
I agree with Scott --- I have noticed an up-tick in MFC-maintenance
demand, for two fairly obvious reasons, I believe: 1) the push toward
this managed .net business, and 2) C++ is hard and has been dropped from
many undergrad university curriculums. From my business perspective,
this change hasn't been a bad thing at all.
MFC is just a tool, and there comes a time when you have no need for new
tools.
Well, C++ is hard for two reasons: 1) that it is based on C, which is
hard for pointers, variable length arguments, structure packing, etc.; 2)
it has evolved into metaprogramming concepts that are also used in things
like STL, Boost, etc.
MFC programmers only have to worry about #1. Myself, I have not mastered
#2 and hope never to have to.
But MFC is hard compared to WinForms, which gives a much more pure Windows
abstraction. So I think even though MFC requires more C++ than C#, and
more Win32 than WinForms, C++ taken to the extreme is not in the equation.
-- David