1. Windows API vs OWL API & MFC API...just curious
I have a simple approach. Try to keep as much of the
machinery of your app in generic C++ classes. When it is time
to impliment the GUI, I use OWL for Windows GUIs because it is
abstracted quite nicely. As a matter of fact, you start to
forget much of the windows quirks because you are fairly well
isolated by the OWL framework. MFC has some advantages that
are expected: better ties to the operating system. The MFC
classes also port to NT on non Intel Plats (for a stiff
price). There is a MAC translator for MFC, but it is new and
clunky. If you want to keep your MAC clients happy, go native
for the MAC.
OWL is getting ported to UNIX by some company (I
believe it ports MFC too, but I'm not sure). I know that if I
were going to write a portable API from scratch, it would be
closer to OWL than MFC. MFC is currently more portable than
OWL, however, due to the resources available to Microsoft.
There are several other API's to consider (ZApp etc.)
but these can be expensive for a starter. I would say that you
could start with OWL if you will target Windows 95 and OS/2.
If you must target MAC or NT (non Intel) then go MFC. You
really cant go wrong with either... they both have their strong
points as well as some design flaws and bugs.
Count on Murphy though,.. since Borland and Microsoft
tend to play leapfrog in the C++ arena, you will find that
whichever brand you buy, the other will release a better
product the next week...
2. Email address change
3. Searching Allan Kays Definition of OOP
4. AssocQueryString() and file extension
5. книга c\с++
6. warp crashed, tried retrieve updates
7. &&& Moles and Mazes &&&
8. FRONTIER: Easy Kills
10. Learn win32 API, or wait for win64 API & tools?
11. учебник по с\с++
12. Difference b/w OLEdb API & ODBC API
13. API to change file dates & times & attributes in NT4?