Is C++ in .NET still the same MFC as visual studio 6.0

[Tony Johansson]

Hello!

If you want to create an GUI application using a tool in visual studion 6.0
you are forced to use MFC.

I just want to know about the developing GUI application in C++ visual
studio .net. Is it still the same old MFC you use or it it completely
different more similar to C#?

//Tony

 

[David Wilkinson]

Hello!

If you want to create an GUI application using a tool in visual studion 6.0
you are forced to use MFC.

I just want to know about the developing GUI application in C++ visual
studio .net. Is it still the same old MFC you use or it it completely
different more similar to C#?

//Tony

Tony:

You can develop an MFC application in Visual Studio.NET just as you
could in VC6. It's just that the compiler has been upgraded to VC7 (VS
2002)or VC7.1 (VS 2003) or VC8 (VS 2005). This has nothing to do with
the .NET framework. The main difference is that the IDE of Visual Studio
itself is very different from the one that came with VC6. Many MFC
developers vastly preferred the old IDE, and are sticking with VC6 for
that reason.

David Wilkinson

 

[Tom Serface]

David,

I used to feel that way, but I switched to 7.1 over a year ago and I don't
find it bad at all. It was difficult to get used to where things were at
first, but I think that they are not going back to the 6.0 interface so you
will have to eventually catch up )

Tom

 

[Olaf Baeyens]

Many MFC developers vastly preferred the old IDE, and are sticking with
VC6 for

that reason.

Because they grew up with it and learning the new stuff is scary and it
appears you would lose a lot of time doing the transition;
But the people that finally set the step towards the .NET way of doing
rarely want to go back to the dinosaur thing called MFC.

But since VB 6 and VC++ 6 are not available to buy anymore, people are
forced to jump to the .NET way of doing and now less and less people are
using the old way of doing things, except for the hardcore ones. I believe
that from job-security viewpoint, it is very interesting to start learning
..NET technology. Use VC++ 2005 so this way you can still create old style
programs and the .NET way or a mix of both. It will probably take a few
more years before .NET is standard programming accepted by all programmers,
but you need a lot of time to learn the way of the .NET programming,
especially the security related stuff that every programmer should know
about. We are in the age of secure programming and .NET is a good step into
that direction.

 

[David Wilkinson]

VC6 for


Because they grew up with it and learning the new stuff is scary and it
appears you would lose a lot of time doing the transition;
But the people that finally set the step towards the .NET way of doing
rarely want to go back to the dinosaur thing called MFC.

But since VB 6 and VC++ 6 are not available to buy anymore, people are
forced to jump to the .NET way of doing and now less and less people are
using the old way of doing things, except for the hardcore ones. I believe
that from job-security viewpoint, it is very interesting to start learning
.NET technology. Use VC++ 2005 so this way you can still create old style
programs and the .NET way or a mix of both. It will probably take a few
more years before .NET is standard programming accepted by all programmers,
but you need a lot of time to learn the way of the .NET programming,
especially the security related stuff that every programmer should know
about. We are in the age of secure programming and .NET is a good step into
that direction.

Olaf:

Nobody is forced to use .NET because VC6 is not available any more. I
hope MS does not believe we programmers are so gullible that naming the
product Visual Studio.NET will cause us to start programming in .NET if
we don't want to.

I use both VC6 (actually VC5) and VC7.1 every day, and I think almost
every MFC programmer would agree that the old IDE was much better for
writing MFC programs. Not a deal-breaker, but true.

I am still amazed that MS had the nerve to abandon the VB6 developers in
Visual Studio.NET, and I am most thankful that the same thing didn't
happen to MFC. Thank you, Bill, thank you.

Interestingly, a lot of VB6 developers were most upset by the fact that
they were not able to program VB6 using the new IDE; MFC developers were
upset because they could not use the new C++ compiler with the old IDE!
But it seems that both these battles are lost...

David Wilkinson

 

[elliotte.martin]

Tony,

In Visual Studio .NET 2005 you can use MFC to develop a GUI app or you
can use C++/CLI to develop a GUI using Windows Forms (which is what is
used for C#).

 

[Olaf Baeyens]

Nobody is forced to use .NET because VC6 is not available any more. I

hope MS does not believe we programmers are so gullible that naming the
product Visual Studio.NET will cause us to start programming in .NET if
we don't want to.

Now, but if you look at job-security, I believe it is wise to also start
learning about .NET things.
Not because MFC is dead, but companies might prefer .NET programs because
you can create the program much faster and you could still use C++ for
performant functions.
Another important part is that if you have a big group of people, then one
can program in C# because his background was C#, the other one in VB.NET and
another one in C++/CLI and all modules can be mixed without any problems.
(except for case senstivity). So no one is forced to learn an unknow
language.

I use both VC6 (actually VC5) and VC7.1 every day, and I think almost
every MFC programmer would agree that the old IDE was much better for
writing MFC programs. Not a deal-breaker, but true.

MFC programs yes. But not everything resides around MFC only.
What about the XML thing? It is harder to implement this without the .NET
framework.

I am still amazed that MS had the nerve to abandon the VB6 developers in
Visual Studio.NET, and I am most thankful that the same thing didn't
happen to MFC. Thank you, Bill, thank you.

Too many programs depend on MFC, me to, a lot of code still is unmanaged C++
I use here and I still am hooked with MFC, but I want to get rid of it as
soon as possible since the MFC dll's give a big overhead for the stuff that
I actually use. My managed VC++ project doesn't like static MFC compiled so
I am stuck with the dll version. :-( I hope the VC++ 2005 has this fixed?

Interestingly, a lot of VB6 developers were most upset by the fact that
they were not able to program VB6 using the new IDE; MFC developers were
upset because they could not use the new C++ compiler with the old IDE!
But it seems that both these battles are lost...

Yes, in the beginning. We have a VB programmer here too, and he got upset
that he had to write more code and less drag and drop functionality.
But now since he uses the VS2005 beta, he is very happy with it, and I don't
think he wants to go back again.

 

[Tom Serface]

I have been using MFC nearly full time for the almost 2 years I've been
using 7.1 and it is as good as any MFC ever and perhaps better because of
some of the rewrites and new classes. I understand that there are some
compelling new classes for MFC programmers in 2005 too. People often ask if
MFC is dying and it certainly doesn't look like it to me.

Tom