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: David Ching on 31 Mar 2007 20:21 "MrAsm" <mrasm(a)usa.com> wrote in message news:j9qt03t7j2bjmd5p581g18id2eu8da0337(a)4ax.com... > On 31 Mar 2007 10:09:32 -0700, "Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>Its one or two clicks to create a simple C# Winform app. > > This is true. > It's also true of C++/CLI Winforms apps... of course I wasn't talking about generating skeleton of a program! > I do agree. And there are other simplifications of C# over C++: from > the unified dot-notation (just "." and no more :: or -> or . ...) This actually was what prevented me from writing code very well in C#. It doesn't make sense to use '.' for all purposes. It looks cleaner, but you lose meaning when you ram 3 meanings into 1 symbol. And not clearly defining what is a pointer and what isn't looks real strange. But now that I know that C# is obfuscating these things, I can mentally translate and it will make sense, and I can code in C# now. Ha, I like that: C#, the obfuscating language. > to > automatic memory management, to properties, to built-in unified > Unicode strings (no more TEXT()/_T(), L"...", WCHAR *, CHAR*, LPCTSTR, > wchar, BSTR, CString, CString, CStringW, CSuperString :), no more > memory leaks, etc. > These are the same advantages C++/CLI enjoys. -- David
From: Shahoo on 31 Mar 2007 20:59 On Apr 1, 4:21 am, "David Ching" <d...(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote: > "MrAsm" <m...(a)usa.com> wrote in message > > news:j9qt03t7j2bjmd5p581g18id2eu8da0337(a)4ax.com... > > > On 31 Mar 2007 10:09:32 -0700, "Ajay Kalra" <ajayka...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > >>Its one or two clicks to create a simple C# Winform app. > > > This is true. > > It's also true of C++/CLI Winforms apps... of course I wasn't talking about > generating skeleton of a program! > > > I do agree. And there are other simplifications of C# over C++: from > > the unified dot-notation (just "." and no more :: or -> or . ...) > > This actually was what prevented me from writing code very well in C#. It > doesn't make sense to use '.' for all purposes. It looks cleaner, but you > lose meaning when you ram 3 meanings into 1 symbol. And not clearly > defining what is a pointer and what isn't looks real strange. But now that > I know that C# is obfuscating these things, I can mentally translate and it > will make sense, and I can code in C# now. Ha, I like that: C#, the > obfuscating language. > > > to > > automatic memory management, to properties, to built-in unified > > Unicode strings (no more TEXT()/_T(), L"...", WCHAR *, CHAR*, LPCTSTR, > > wchar, BSTR, CString, CString, CStringW, CSuperString :), no more > > memory leaks, etc. > > These are the same advantages C++/CLI enjoys. > > -- David Hi and thanks for your help. I learned Native C++ in university when I was a freshman and moved to Java. But it was too slow, so I desiced to learn Visual C++ (MFC). And now I am doing both C# and Visual C++, for the C# I have plenty of books and resources and because it is very similar to Java, it is easier to learn and has some advantages or Visual C++(at least for me) like:ASP.NET, Better job situations and more. But in some situations as MrAsm mentioned It is not possible to use C# and .Net framework and there MFC is the best choice. The only problem with MFC is that it is a little more difficult to learn than C# and most of the books I have seen just introduce very basics of it and advanced and more important parts are not included. If I could find a book on MFC like "C# 2005 how to program" by Deitels or "Core Java" from sun the only problem with MFC would be solved. And of my bad chance Amazon and other web sites do not ship their goods (including books) to my country (Iran). Thank you all.
From: Ajay Kalra on 31 Mar 2007 21:05 On Mar 31, 6:10 pm, MrAsm <m...(a)usa.com> wrote: > On 31 Mar 2007 10:09:32 -0700, "Ajay Kalra" <ajayka...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > >> As I've said before, it isn't as easy as people think to create your first > >> WinForms app in C#. > > >Its one or two clicks to create a simple C# Winform app. > > This is true. > > > > >>There is enough new that you don't need to be tripping > >> over the eccentricities of C# (compared to C++) along with everything else. > > >I think C++/CLI is significantly more complicated than C#. In C# there > >is no distinction between managed or unmanaged. > > I do agree. And there are other simplifications of C# over C++: from > the unified dot-notation (just "." and no more :: or -> or . ...) to > automatic memory management, to properties, to built-in unified > Unicode strings (no more TEXT()/_T(), L"...", WCHAR *, CHAR*, LPCTSTR, > wchar, BSTR, CString, CString, CStringW, CSuperString :), no more > memory leaks, etc. > IMHO, C++ as a language is ancient compared to C#. There is just no comparison. --- Ajay
From: David Ching on 31 Mar 2007 21:41 "Shahoo" <shahookamangar(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175389152.515744.301840(a)l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Hi and thanks for your help. > I learned Native C++ in university when I was a freshman and moved to > Java. But it was too slow, > so I desiced to learn Visual C++ (MFC). And now I am doing both C# and > Visual C++, for the C# I > have plenty of books and resources and because it is very similar to > Java, it is easier to learn and > has some advantages or Visual C++(at least for me) like:ASP.NET, > Better job situations and more. 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? > But in some situations as MrAsm mentioned It is not possible to use C# > and .Net framework and > there MFC is the best choice. The only problem with MFC is that it is > a little more difficult to learn than > C# and most of the books I have seen just introduce very basics of it > and advanced and more important > parts are not included. If I could find a book on MFC like "C# 2005 > how to program" by Deitels or "Core Java" > from sun the only problem with MFC would be solved. And of my bad > chance Amazon and other web sites do > not ship their goods (including books) to my country (Iran). > Thank you all. > 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 23:47
MrAsm, One of the "good" things about MFC is that it has, for the most part, stayed compatible with previous versions over the years. I disagree that C++ is not as well suited for doing .NET programming, but I can't argue that C# gets all the cool tools :o) Tom "MrAsm" <mrasm(a)usa.com> wrote in message news:740t03dg92olvj21lfcvur5fpqacle1a1e(a)4ax.com... > On 30 Mar 2007 19:17:45 -0700, ajkalra(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>Jeff Prosise's MFC book(2nd edition) is dated(VC6) but is very valid. >>Its all about MFC and obviously has nothing about .Net in it. > > I do like Jeff's MFC book very much. It's very very clear: I learned > MFC reading this great book (and coding, too). > > For the .NET part, it's just my humble opinion, but I would not invest > time in learning C++ extensions for .NET. If I want to do .NET > programming, I would do it in C# (which IMHO is much better suited for > this kind of task.) > > MrAsm |