Teach Yourself Borland C++ in 14 Days - portal

138 Day 5
Another strength of MFC, according to some, is that it is a thin wrapper around the Windows
API. Again, for Windows programmers who are moving from programming in C to
programming in C++ with MFC, this is an advantage. They can begin to use MFC and feel
somewhat at home.
Finally, MFC has the distinct advantage of belonging to Microsoft. The advantage is that as
new Windows features and technologies come along, MFC can be first to implement them.
Microsoft can release a new technology, and MFC can already have support for that
technology when it is announced. That certainly doesn’t hurt!
MFC has its weaknesses too. First and foremost, it is a thin wrapper around the Windows
API. “Wait a minute!” you say. “I thought you said that was one of MFC’s strengths!” Yes,
I did. It’s also one of its weaknesses. Some folks would consider MFC’s close tie to the API
a strength. I consider it a weakness. The whole idea behind a class library is to shield the user
from things he or she doesn’t need to know about. MFC fails that test in many cases. Folks
who are coming from Windows programming in C consider that a strength. You can form
your own opinion. Along those same lines, MFC is not OOP friendly. Sometimes it appears
to be a hastily implemented collection of classes that don’t work and play well together rather
than something planned and designed from the ground up to work as a unit.
Another problem with MFC is that the latest version is 32-bit only, as is the Visual C++ 4.0
compiler. Although you can still write 16-bit programs using Microsoft’s Visual C++ 1.5
(which comes with Visual C++ 4.0), you will likely find a disappointing development
environment.
So Who’s Winning?
Without question, MFC is more widely used than OWL. Part of the reason is that both MFC
and the Visual C++ compiler bear the Microsoft name. It’s no secret that Microsoft is king
of the hill in the PC software industry. It is also no secret that Microsoft has marketing power
that other companies can only dream about. In addition, there is a prevailing attitude of (to
slightly modify a coined phrase) “No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.”
I firmly believe that OWL is the better framework. Few who have used both OWL and MFC
extensively would argue that point. But MFC is undoubtedly the C++ framework of choice
today. There are many reasons, some of which I’ve alluded to already. Other reasons include
a perceived lack of direction on Borland’s part in recent years. Some managers prefer to play
it safe and buy a product produced by “the big M” regardless of technical merit. Hopefully
that attitude won’t eventually lead us to a software industry with a gross lack of competition.
This industry desperately needs companies like Borland that will push the envelope.
So what is the future of C++ frameworks? It’s nearly impossible to guess at this point. It could
be that both MFC and OWL are losing to the new kid on the block—components. Let’s take
a look at the Visual Component Library now.