Talk:Microsoft Foundation Class Library

message: <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:
* 3rd generation 
* compiled to native asm86 language 
* within the top 100 of the TIOBE index 
* that can even come close to generating a smaller 
* and at least as fast 
* stand-alone 
* gui executable hello_world.exe 
* for a freshly installed "vanilla" Win98-FE computer ...  (standalone assuming that mfc42.dll is present).
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)
thread_title:  mfc does not necessarily generate bloated code 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The page is Unstructured 

message: 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..."
:"MFC" is the name of a library, so it is singular in that usage. If you're talking about the classes of the library, I would say "MFC" is plural because there is more than one class.
:: Ah, that makes sense for me.
:*I linked with the MFC library.
:*You can use the MFC classes to solve your problem.
:At that point, you start getting into wondering if the words in the sentence are redundant to the acronym.
:--Mikeblas 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plural or singular 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discrepancies between English article and other language articles 

message: "(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)
replies: text: I guess you're right. -- Mikeblas 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Guide to layout recommends a "further reading" section, and I think the book list is meant to approach that goal. Your question about a list of Windows book is probably better suited for the Microsoft Windows talk page. -- Mikeblas 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF is the Book List For?

message: <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 , 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)
thread_title:  citation needed and <nowiki>{{Fact|date=month year}}</nowiki> 

message: Does anyone know ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.218.66 (talk • contribs) 
: Search the web for "What's new in MFC 8", and I'm sure you'll find a few articles on it. -- Mikeblas 09:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's new in MFC8 ? 

message: * Should Pocket PC compatibility/incompatibility be listed as both an advantage and disadvantage?
* The eat your own dogfood disadvantage is pretty much speculation: "it is not clear...". I'm always reluctant on including speculation as definite (dis)advantages. Although MS Office is listed as an example, WordPad is an example of an MFC application, and that's even shipped with the OS.
* The "significant learning curve" sounds subjective; for example, it wasn't for me, and I have experience from Java and .NET to compare with at least. Once you know the basic classes and DocView model, there's mostly just a whole lot of helper classes for things like I/O, etc.
* Fast compilation speed: In comparison to what? It's not faster than regular C++, and I can't say .NET or Java was much slower either. If this is to stay, it at least need to say what it's fast in comparison to.
* Windows 3.x backporting: How common is it for API's to still offer support for Windows 3.1 backporting and how relevant is it to an article in this day and age? I think that point should simply be removed because it's no longer relevant. There's no significant crowd that wants Windows XP apps in MFC backported to Windows 3.1 today.
Thanks for reading. :-) I may adjust some of these in the future unless people think otherwise. — Northgrove 11:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some advantages/disadvantages comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes it does. It's under "computing". Ham Pastrami 11:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MFC disambiguation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advantages and disadvantages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed "MFC 9" to "MFCNext" 

message: "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.
: Who is the "some" that consider it a standard? Thats weasel wording and not allowed here. Be specific about who considers what.
: Where is the proof that it is considered a "de facto industrial standard"?
: Where is the proof that it has received a "hail storm of criticism"? I see only a comment that says there is no more feature in VC++ feature pack than bcg control bar. Thats the guys wishlist and hardly a criticism. Plus a blog comment does not count as a reliable source. Its not a valid reference.
: Who is the "many" that do not consider it adequate solution? That too is weaselling. What we do not like, unless we are reliable enough to shape community's opinion, do not count as include-able criticism.
: Listing alternate solutions is just advertising them over some product. Thats never done here and will not be done. We never say something is used over something else. The closest to this we do is the comparison. And comparisons are not even done in an article, rather separate articles are created. There we just list the features out in a table, and let the readers decide. We do not make the decision for the readers. What you are doing is not suitable here. --soum talk 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Bias References 

message: : Who is the "some" that consider it a standard? Thats weasel wording and not allowed here. Be specific about who considers what.
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.
: Where is the proof that it is considered a "de facto industrial standard"?
Again, this was not my wording, but another who was attempting to promote BCGSoft, glad to see them go.
: Where is the proof that it has received a "hail storm of criticism"? I see only a comment that says there is no more feature in VC++ feature pack than bcg control bar.
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)
replies: text: Sorry but our opinions or even truth do not count here, but rather that it should be verifiable and by that it means that it should be backed up by reliable sources (which blog comments are not). Thats the policy here, and they are to be held. Provide reliable references and I will be more than happy to include them. Without that, I am sorry, but this does not count to be included here. --soum talk 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Non Bias References 

message: 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)
thread_title: Visual C++ Express edition and MFC

message: 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)
replies: text: VS2005 is the last version which supports anything older than XP SP2. This isn't because of MFC, it's the CRT. See http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/14/1725205 and search for "2005" for more info. --67.64.66.99 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum OS Requirements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Visual C++ Redistributable für Visual Studio 2012 Update 4 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.microsoft.com/express/Support/Support-faq.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071024024526/http://msdn2.microsoft.com:80/en-us/visualc/aa442855.aspx to http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/visualc/aa442855.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Foundation Class Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101026203218/http://www.microsoft.com:80/security/atl.aspx to http://www.microsoft.com/security/atl.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: MFC now included with the free version of Visual Studio

message: 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)
thread_title:  Universal Windows Platform