Re: Whither GUI conventions?

From:

"Tom Serface" <tom.nospam@camaswood.com>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.mfc

Date:

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:15:43 -0800

Message-ID:

<12B0ED96-1FC9-4532-954E-192A01BB7B09@microsoft.com>

I'd guess they keep improving the optimizer, or some settings could have
been optimized for you when it converted from one version to the next. If
the code is the same then I could expect it could get smaller as the
compiler gets smaller. I think that MFC got a bit smaller as well when it
went to VC7 since many of the functions were replaced by ATL equivalents.

Tom

"David Connet" <stuff@agilityrecordbook.com> wrote in message
news:pzKjj.64890$eY.59897@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

"David Ching" <dc@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in
news:BBJjj.1018$EZ3.958@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:

"Tom Serface" <tom.nospam@camaswood.com> wrote in message
news:455FA101-CA89-4DB2-8231-6ABACCB20671@microsoft.com...

I have an entire application with statically linked MFC that is 300K.
Couldn't do that with .NET :o)

300K is fine. I'm just saying VC6 could do it for less.

I'm not so sure... :-)

My program is
VC6: 4,132,864 (non-unicode) [mfc dll]
VC7.1: 3,743,744 (non-unicode) [mfc dll]
VC8: 3,727,360 (non-unicode) [mfc static]
VC8: 3,751,936 (unicode) [mfc static]
VC9: 3,763,200 (unicode) [mfc static]

I hadn't compared these before - kind of interesting...

Dave Connet