oannis Vranos wrote:
[ ... ]
Perhaps you should learn what you're talking about before making such
In VS6 if you want "RAD", you create an MFC application, and select
"CFormView" as the parent class for your view. You then plop down
buttons, edit controls, etc. Attaching code is virtually identical to
doing it in 7.1. For example, attaching code to a button in 7.1
requires double-clicking the button, where 6.0 requires a ctrl-double
click instead. If you're honestly suggesting that pressing or not
pressing the control key while double-clicking is the difference
between RAD and not, so be it, but if that's honestly what RAD means, I
have to admit it's even stupider than I always thought.
[ ... ]
7.0 had the same sort of crap, just for VB, C# and such. In 7.1 they
added it for their corruption of C++, but the IDE itself doesn't strike
me as significantly different. OTOH, I have to admit that I found both
sufficiently bad that I quit using them fairly quickly, so there may be
differences in the details that I've never gotten around to finding.
I'll refrain from an (even further off-topic) rant on the defects in
How in the world does this strike you as easier than MFC? For MFC, I
put the button on a form, do a control-double-click, and it creates a
skeleton handler for the button being pressed, and puts my cursor right
about where I'm likely to want to add some code to do something when
the button is pressed.
It sounds to me like you've used VS 6/MFC very little (if at all).
[ ... ]
It's excessively complex, and bears only a superficial and misleading
resemblence to C++.
You guess wrong. You _can_ explicitly specify sizes and positions of
controls if you _want_ to with MFC, but if you're designing a form,
there's rarely much reason to do so. I'm pretty sure I don't remember
the last time I did such a thing anyway.
[ ... ]
I'm not talking about in my code. I'm talking about in the IDE,
specifically in its "properties" window. It has all the "overridables"
for your form. If you want to override one, you have to put in the name
of the overriding function -- but this has to precisely match the name
of the function being overridden, so you can only ever enter one piece
of text there.
To their (minimal) credit, they do include a drop-down that lets you
select "add <function_name>" and it enters the text for you. While
better than nothing, this is still exceptionally poor GUI design --
first of all, what it holds isn't really a piece of data, but something
that acts like a button. Second, it's wasteful -- the space taken by
the drop-down list could easily hold the buttons directly. Third, it's
inefficient -- to add the item, you either type in its name (perfectly)
or else click the drop-down, then select the "add <whatever>" item (at
that point, the only item in the list) and finally get to start editing
Also looking more carefully, once you've added the handler, it turns
out there IS a way to remove it -- but you can't do it directly -- you
have to select the "delete" item from the drop-down list.
I'm reasonably certain the person who did this did NOT really think
about using it. Rather, s/he had this cool list that held actions
instead of data, and decide to use it, mostly just because it was new
where buttons were old and boring (and functional).
The universe is a figment of its own im