Just curious - since I am about to start a new project
with a Medical Equipment company, I need to develop
programs on both the Win32 platform and embedded
NEC microcontrollers.

The company is asking for it to be developed VC++ 6.0
and also thinking of switching to Windows CE compatible
embedded micros. I am trying to avoid VC because I haven't
downloaded service pack 5 yet.

I like to know anyone has ported MFC 6 in DMC already
or I should switch to ATL.

Kar Gay Lim

No MFC 6.0 port yet.

I have been working on it, but never got the time to finish it.

Walter just got a license worked out with Microsoft, so now we can offer MFC 4.21 for download again. It just became available today.

If there are others besides us interested in MFC 6.0 I might get back to it, but for now I have let it at the state where is it is for over a year if not two.

Jan



Kar Gay Lim wrote:

> Just curious - since I am about to start a new project
> with a Medical Equipment company, I need to develop
> programs on both the Win32 platform and embedded
> NEC microcontrollers.
>
> The company is asking for it to be developed VC++ 6.0
> and also thinking of switching to Windows CE compatible
> embedded micros. I am trying to avoid VC because I haven't
> downloaded service pack 5 yet.
>
> I like to know anyone has ported MFC 6 in DMC already
> or I should switch to ATL.
>
> Kar Gay Lim

Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3AA86DAF.2BF32E18@smartsoft.cc...
> No MFC 6.0 port yet.
>
> I have been working on it, but never got the time to finish it.
>
> Walter just got a license worked out with Microsoft, so now we can offer MFC 4.21 for download again. It just became available today.

It is like back in Borland C++ again. While BC++ claims to support MFC but individual must own VC++ to be able to use MFC.

I guess I could experiment with DMC to see if I can use dynamically
link MFC project. That again depends on the binary .obj format
yet to be converted...

> If there are others besides us interested in MFC 6.0 I might get back to it, but for now I have let it at the state where is it is for over a year if not two.

That is an interesting point. Microsoft is not really keen on MFC
anymore. Although they would not admit it, signs are there, for
example, Mike Blaszczak is out of the MFC team years ago...
The new ATL 2.0 "promised" to be more interoperable with the
MFC wizards, etc etc.


Aaaahhhhhh!!!!!

<Now that I've let it all out>
Back to evil VC++ 6.0 again, now where is the new service patch? ....

Kar Gay Lim wrote:

> Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3AA86DAF.2BF32E18@smartsoft.cc...
> > No MFC 6.0 port yet.
> >
> > I have been working on it, but never got the time to finish it.
> >
> > Walter just got a license worked out with Microsoft, so now we can offer MFC 4.21 for download again. It just became available today.
>
> It is like back in Borland C++ again. While BC++ claims to support MFC but individual must own VC++ to be able to use MFC.

No, as far as I know MFC on the download page is complete, i.e. ATL (header) + MFC 4.21
(header & sources). It also contains Project files to compile the stuff.
I know Walter requested licenses for the header and source files, not for any binaries as
we can generate those with the compiler.

> I guess I could experiment with DMC to see if I can use dynamically
> link MFC project. That again depends on the binary .obj format
> yet to be converted...

I don't think that will work...
COFF v.s. OMF...

> > If there are others besides us interested in MFC 6.0 I might get back to it, but for now I have let it at the state where is it is for over a year if not two.
> That is an interesting point. Microsoft is not really keen on MFC
> anymore. Although they would not admit it, signs are there, for
> example, Mike Blaszczak is out of the MFC team years ago...
> The new ATL 2.0 "promised" to be more interoperable with the
> MFC wizards, etc etc.

Well, I have started to port MFC 6.0, but never finished the job as there is much more
involved getting 6.0 to work with DMC++ than 4.21.
I know it is possible though...

> Aaaahhhhhh!!!!!
>
> <Now that I've let it all out>
> Back to evil VC++ 6.0 again, now where is the new service patch? ....

I would not know. I have it in MSDN 2001 for sure, but I don't support MS VC-- 6.0. There is a certain company in the upper North West that claims it does...

Don't worry, be Kneppie!
Jan

Jan Knepper wrote in message <3AAA248F.538B4C18@smartsoft.cc>...
>Kar Gay Lim wrote:
>> I guess I could experiment with DMC to see if I can use dynamically
>> link MFC project. That again depends on the binary .obj format
>> yet to be converted...
>
>I don't think that will work...
>COFF v.s. OMF...



Hmm. Won't coff2omf work? -Walter

I never tried COFF2OMF on a C++ library...
It works on C libraries though.
Besides that... For MFC 6.0 you will have to be able to get the header
files through the compiler and that requires a ton of changes.

Jan



Walter wrote:

> Jan Knepper wrote in message <3AAA248F.538B4C18@smartsoft.cc>...
> >Kar Gay Lim wrote:
> >> I guess I could experiment with DMC to see if I can use dynamically
> >> link MFC project. That again depends on the binary .obj format
> >> yet to be converted...
> >
> >I don't think that will work...
> >COFF v.s. OMF...
>
> Hmm. Won't coff2omf work? -Walter

"Kar Gay Lim" <kagay@kimay.net> wrote in message news:98c2qb$8sq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It is like back in Borland C++ again. While BC++ claims to support MFC but individual must own VC++ to be able to use MFC.

According to the terms of the contract with Microsoft, if the MFC 6.0 does get ported to DMC++, then we can distribute it. Owning VC++ will not be necessary.


> I guess I could experiment with DMC to see if I can use dynamically
> link MFC project. That again depends on the binary .obj format
> yet to be converted...

DMC++ is binary compatible with VC++ (you can hook up to VC++ generated
DLL's).