This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hat it doesn't say is that MFC is an overgrown, macro-rigged, unmaintainable collection of old code that breaks all OOP rules, ignores C++ coding guidelines and must be hacked to write anything more complex than a demo application. Can someone say that in a polite way? - Sikon 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
<alert comment="wikipedia newbie and so-so MFC developer">
IMHO, it is "baloney sandwich" to say "that MFC tends to incredibly bloat code". Sure, compared to asm86 and native C and the native win32 (and possibly "D" for a huge app).
I respectfully challenge anyone to come up with another:
Another challenge ... and I would love to be wrong because I would advocate an eventual rewrite the freeware apps I have been part of ...
Show me an app that is as fast and has as much functionality in 208,896 bytes as an app I've worked on .... call it MyMfcDynamicallyLinkedApp.exe
Or MyBmhSixThreadConsoleSpeedTestAppDynamicallyLinked.exe in 90,112 bytes
I specifically insist that any candidate language include the size of any required .dll's and/or runtimes that must be included on a "vanilla" Win98-FE thru WinXP computer .... (not Vista which I have not used).
For more info, please check with MFC experts at this website: www.codeproject.org
(the baloney sandwiches you find in wikepedia.org .... frustrating <g>)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikeblas
</alert> Lynn 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The page is unstructured. Please group the info into various sections like history, advantages, criticisms etc. In that way, both positive and negative points can be presented in a npov way. -- Soumyasch 09:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that similar wrappers exist that are cross platform ie GTK QT wxWidgets etc... and make a point that even if MS is still supporting and patching MFC (last alterations in VC 8.0) resources and new up-to-date information and examples are becoming scarce as people start to using .NET as MS resources (or supported by) are realocated to promote the .NET framework (in a not so near future a C++ programer will be an oddity, one capable of doing something complex with MFC would be a rarety)...
just thought about, whether I have to set the verbs in the german article in plural, because the C don't stands for class but classes. Then I noticied that here also is written of "the MFC was..."
This article is very different from other language versions of wikipedia. For example, from the French version:
The Microsoft Foundation Class (abridged in MFC) are a set of classes in C++ encapsulating the Win32 API (written in C) of Windows. His/her/its detractors blame him for his/her/its lack of abstraction of the Win32 API, as well as his/her/its lack of encapsulation, while his/her/its aficionados appreciates the possibility of has....
Original:
Les Microsoft Foundation Class (abrégé en MFC) sont un ensemble de classes en C++ encapsulant l'API Win32 (écrite en C) de Windows. Ses détracteurs lui reprochent son manque d'abstraction de l'API Win32, ainsi que son manque d'encapsulation, tandis que ses aficionados apprécient la possibilité d'a
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_foundation_class
Obviously none of this is mentioned in this article.
Note: the translation is not mine. My French, which was once nearly fluent, now sucks. I used the Babylon translation, hence the rather awkward result. But the basic content is clear.
The Italian & German articles also mention controversy. Not being a programmer, and thus not knowing the history of MFC, I can't judge whether the other articles mention of "controversy" is irrelevant or POV; or, conversly, if the English article is incomplete by not mentioning it.
It is interesting that this is not noted in the English version.
PainMan 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the French, "Microsoft Foundation Class" is cited by the official name of the library, but interpreted (though not consistently) as grammatically plural, since it refers to a plurality of classes. The his/her/its construction is an artificial one, since in this case, it's referring to MFC, which is neuter, so "his" and "her" aren't applicable; it should be read as "its." "Abriged in" is a poor choice of words, used here to mean "abbreviated," referring to the acronym, "MFC". "Him" should be "it," probably mistranslated due to an inadequacy in computer translation. I don't know what generated the conflict in grammatical number between "aficionados" (plural) and "appreciates" (single). The translator certainly ought to have recognized the latter as the verb of which the former is the subject. No other parsing makes sense in the context. D021317c 01:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This wikipedia entry is written in such a way that only people who already know the content will be able to understand the article, which seems to defeat the purpose.
"(many of these features – exceptions or run time type identification, for example – were not built into Microsoft's compiler at the time, but would appear in future versions)" I suspect "would appear" is used here to mean "did appear." D021317c 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
C++ wrapper types for many common Windows resource-related data types that provide automatic closure of handles when the objects creating them go out of scope.
Not an advantage to .NET, since .NET provides a garbage collector.
provides utility classes such as CString and collection classes, which are usable even by console applications
.NET also provides such classes
capable IDE (integrated development environment) for debugging and code development
Many of the alternatives to MFC use the same IDE - Visual Studio, so how is this an advantage?
relatively small gui executables
Compared to what? (Definately not .NET or WinAPI)
alternatives to MFC either must link with that vendor's library, or supply a .dll
MFC uses .dlls included in the Windows OS. How is this an advantage?
integration with form designer to position controls
Not an advantage, since alternatives can take advantage of this development tool in the Visual Studio IDE (Including WinAPI and .NET).
large amount of resources available, from books to websites to sample code
Not an advantage also. The same is true for alternatives.
fast compilation speed
Compared to what? Not true when compared to .NET.
similar code base (but typically not completely the same) can be used for desktop and Pocket PC applications
.NET has the compact framework library for Pocket PCs.
-- Jfrascencio 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need a list of books about MFC? Why not on the Windows page put every single book about Windows? Computer Guru 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
<alert comment="wikepedia newbie and so-so mfc programmer">
I am baffled why the public version shows all kinds of "citation needed" but when I look at the "edit" page there are all kinds of {{Fact|date=February 2007}}, such as "The future of MFC".
I was just looking at the MFC page because I was trying to figure out how to put a "citation needed" in an article about Spener and why it had a link to heraldry.
</alert> Lynn 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.218.66 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for reading. :-) I may adjust some of these in the future unless people think otherwise. — Northgrove 11:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
hi all the MFC disambiguation page does not have a link directing to this page someone please do the needful thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.65.87.199 ( talk) 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the policy, but I'm pretty sure any advantages and disadvantages would be subjective. None of these are sourced. I left them here just so they're not deleted. Wikidan829 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the header was MFC 9, but the update is actually dubbed MFCNext. (Google it for Microsoft references) It is not MFC 9, as MFC 9 is already released with VS 2008 and has its own set of updates (a few more Vista controls, etc). MFCNext will be a MFC update on top of MFC 9. — Northgrove 09:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"Considered by some as the "de facto" industrial standard for commercial applications, BCGControlBar has received a hail storm of criticism[9] for poor quality and overall sluggish performance. While suitable for the hobbyist, many do not consider it an adequate solution for commercial application development, and have turned to solutions such as Codejock’s Toolkit Pro[10] or Prof-UIS[11]."
The first one is referring to the comments on a blog, search for keywords performance and quality and you will see where the criticism is found. The second two "references" are links to the websites of alternative MFC products. I think it is important to have a non bias approach here and list alternative MFC resources.
I agree with you, those "words" were not my own but another who updated this article to help promote BCGSoft. Glad to see them go. I left them there attempting to be non partial to BCG and other MFC products that I mentioned.
Again, this was not my wording, but another who was attempting to promote BCGSoft, glad to see them go.
There are many, many comments if you actually read thru the comments in that Blog. This was one of the first blogs that made mention of the new features in VC, and the comments relfect much of the developer community sentiment.
I was trying to be non partial overall, I feel that I have as much right to add legitimate content as you. It appears that Microsoft is paying you overtime today, you need to take a break from your obvious bias. There are more opnions out there then just yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.187.166 ( talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says on two places: Free C++ refactoring tools are also available, even for the Express editions (as a separate download). and The Visual Studio Express Editions do not include the MFC libraries (which can be obtained for free, as well, as a separate download, rc designers not included). Any links (or at least full names of that packages) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.72.103 ( talk) 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
MFC 10 applications do not seem to work on anything prior to XP SP2 but I can't find anything documented anywhere that confirms this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.222.1 ( talk) 01:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
New updated released on 2013-11-14. See http://www.microsoft.com/de-at/download/details.aspx?id=30679 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.117.50 ( talk) 12:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Microsoft does not appear to be calling the free development tools Express anymore and MFC is now included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackwrench ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
How does Universal Windows Platform relate to MFC, would it be correct to say it is a modern replacement especially for app development? Should Universal Windows Platform be added under 'See Also' for starters? John a s ( talk) 13:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hat it doesn't say is that MFC is an overgrown, macro-rigged, unmaintainable collection of old code that breaks all OOP rules, ignores C++ coding guidelines and must be hacked to write anything more complex than a demo application. Can someone say that in a polite way? - Sikon 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
<alert comment="wikipedia newbie and so-so MFC developer">
IMHO, it is "baloney sandwich" to say "that MFC tends to incredibly bloat code". Sure, compared to asm86 and native C and the native win32 (and possibly "D" for a huge app).
I respectfully challenge anyone to come up with another:
Another challenge ... and I would love to be wrong because I would advocate an eventual rewrite the freeware apps I have been part of ...
Show me an app that is as fast and has as much functionality in 208,896 bytes as an app I've worked on .... call it MyMfcDynamicallyLinkedApp.exe
Or MyBmhSixThreadConsoleSpeedTestAppDynamicallyLinked.exe in 90,112 bytes
I specifically insist that any candidate language include the size of any required .dll's and/or runtimes that must be included on a "vanilla" Win98-FE thru WinXP computer .... (not Vista which I have not used).
For more info, please check with MFC experts at this website: www.codeproject.org
(the baloney sandwiches you find in wikepedia.org .... frustrating <g>)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikeblas
</alert> Lynn 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The page is unstructured. Please group the info into various sections like history, advantages, criticisms etc. In that way, both positive and negative points can be presented in a npov way. -- Soumyasch 09:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that similar wrappers exist that are cross platform ie GTK QT wxWidgets etc... and make a point that even if MS is still supporting and patching MFC (last alterations in VC 8.0) resources and new up-to-date information and examples are becoming scarce as people start to using .NET as MS resources (or supported by) are realocated to promote the .NET framework (in a not so near future a C++ programer will be an oddity, one capable of doing something complex with MFC would be a rarety)...
just thought about, whether I have to set the verbs in the german article in plural, because the C don't stands for class but classes. Then I noticied that here also is written of "the MFC was..."
This article is very different from other language versions of wikipedia. For example, from the French version:
The Microsoft Foundation Class (abridged in MFC) are a set of classes in C++ encapsulating the Win32 API (written in C) of Windows. His/her/its detractors blame him for his/her/its lack of abstraction of the Win32 API, as well as his/her/its lack of encapsulation, while his/her/its aficionados appreciates the possibility of has....
Original:
Les Microsoft Foundation Class (abrégé en MFC) sont un ensemble de classes en C++ encapsulant l'API Win32 (écrite en C) de Windows. Ses détracteurs lui reprochent son manque d'abstraction de l'API Win32, ainsi que son manque d'encapsulation, tandis que ses aficionados apprécient la possibilité d'a
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_foundation_class
Obviously none of this is mentioned in this article.
Note: the translation is not mine. My French, which was once nearly fluent, now sucks. I used the Babylon translation, hence the rather awkward result. But the basic content is clear.
The Italian & German articles also mention controversy. Not being a programmer, and thus not knowing the history of MFC, I can't judge whether the other articles mention of "controversy" is irrelevant or POV; or, conversly, if the English article is incomplete by not mentioning it.
It is interesting that this is not noted in the English version.
PainMan 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the French, "Microsoft Foundation Class" is cited by the official name of the library, but interpreted (though not consistently) as grammatically plural, since it refers to a plurality of classes. The his/her/its construction is an artificial one, since in this case, it's referring to MFC, which is neuter, so "his" and "her" aren't applicable; it should be read as "its." "Abriged in" is a poor choice of words, used here to mean "abbreviated," referring to the acronym, "MFC". "Him" should be "it," probably mistranslated due to an inadequacy in computer translation. I don't know what generated the conflict in grammatical number between "aficionados" (plural) and "appreciates" (single). The translator certainly ought to have recognized the latter as the verb of which the former is the subject. No other parsing makes sense in the context. D021317c 01:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This wikipedia entry is written in such a way that only people who already know the content will be able to understand the article, which seems to defeat the purpose.
"(many of these features – exceptions or run time type identification, for example – were not built into Microsoft's compiler at the time, but would appear in future versions)" I suspect "would appear" is used here to mean "did appear." D021317c 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
C++ wrapper types for many common Windows resource-related data types that provide automatic closure of handles when the objects creating them go out of scope.
Not an advantage to .NET, since .NET provides a garbage collector.
provides utility classes such as CString and collection classes, which are usable even by console applications
.NET also provides such classes
capable IDE (integrated development environment) for debugging and code development
Many of the alternatives to MFC use the same IDE - Visual Studio, so how is this an advantage?
relatively small gui executables
Compared to what? (Definately not .NET or WinAPI)
alternatives to MFC either must link with that vendor's library, or supply a .dll
MFC uses .dlls included in the Windows OS. How is this an advantage?
integration with form designer to position controls
Not an advantage, since alternatives can take advantage of this development tool in the Visual Studio IDE (Including WinAPI and .NET).
large amount of resources available, from books to websites to sample code
Not an advantage also. The same is true for alternatives.
fast compilation speed
Compared to what? Not true when compared to .NET.
similar code base (but typically not completely the same) can be used for desktop and Pocket PC applications
.NET has the compact framework library for Pocket PCs.
-- Jfrascencio 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need a list of books about MFC? Why not on the Windows page put every single book about Windows? Computer Guru 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
<alert comment="wikepedia newbie and so-so mfc programmer">
I am baffled why the public version shows all kinds of "citation needed" but when I look at the "edit" page there are all kinds of {{Fact|date=February 2007}}, such as "The future of MFC".
I was just looking at the MFC page because I was trying to figure out how to put a "citation needed" in an article about Spener and why it had a link to heraldry.
</alert> Lynn 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.218.66 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for reading. :-) I may adjust some of these in the future unless people think otherwise. — Northgrove 11:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
hi all the MFC disambiguation page does not have a link directing to this page someone please do the needful thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.65.87.199 ( talk) 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the policy, but I'm pretty sure any advantages and disadvantages would be subjective. None of these are sourced. I left them here just so they're not deleted. Wikidan829 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the header was MFC 9, but the update is actually dubbed MFCNext. (Google it for Microsoft references) It is not MFC 9, as MFC 9 is already released with VS 2008 and has its own set of updates (a few more Vista controls, etc). MFCNext will be a MFC update on top of MFC 9. — Northgrove 09:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"Considered by some as the "de facto" industrial standard for commercial applications, BCGControlBar has received a hail storm of criticism[9] for poor quality and overall sluggish performance. While suitable for the hobbyist, many do not consider it an adequate solution for commercial application development, and have turned to solutions such as Codejock’s Toolkit Pro[10] or Prof-UIS[11]."
The first one is referring to the comments on a blog, search for keywords performance and quality and you will see where the criticism is found. The second two "references" are links to the websites of alternative MFC products. I think it is important to have a non bias approach here and list alternative MFC resources.
I agree with you, those "words" were not my own but another who updated this article to help promote BCGSoft. Glad to see them go. I left them there attempting to be non partial to BCG and other MFC products that I mentioned.
Again, this was not my wording, but another who was attempting to promote BCGSoft, glad to see them go.
There are many, many comments if you actually read thru the comments in that Blog. This was one of the first blogs that made mention of the new features in VC, and the comments relfect much of the developer community sentiment.
I was trying to be non partial overall, I feel that I have as much right to add legitimate content as you. It appears that Microsoft is paying you overtime today, you need to take a break from your obvious bias. There are more opnions out there then just yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.187.166 ( talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says on two places: Free C++ refactoring tools are also available, even for the Express editions (as a separate download). and The Visual Studio Express Editions do not include the MFC libraries (which can be obtained for free, as well, as a separate download, rc designers not included). Any links (or at least full names of that packages) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.72.103 ( talk) 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
MFC 10 applications do not seem to work on anything prior to XP SP2 but I can't find anything documented anywhere that confirms this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.222.1 ( talk) 01:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
New updated released on 2013-11-14. See http://www.microsoft.com/de-at/download/details.aspx?id=30679 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.117.50 ( talk) 12:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Microsoft does not appear to be calling the free development tools Express anymore and MFC is now included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackwrench ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
How does Universal Windows Platform relate to MFC, would it be correct to say it is a modern replacement especially for app development? Should Universal Windows Platform be added under 'See Also' for starters? John a s ( talk) 13:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)