Philippe Fremy

I thought I would drop a few lines. I liked your article a lot and I agree 110% with it. I have experience with MFC and I am relative beginner to Qt, and to summarize it , compared to Qt MFC is a horrible hack. I think Microsoft lacked of good c++ designers/programmers and/or they didn't have any interest into producing a nice, easy-to-use c++ gui library. [...]

Anyway, once again, I really liked your article, each paragraph made sense. I had the same problems and objections.

Costa B, on the 01/07/2005

Hi,

I found your comparison between MFC and Qt as I was searching for a transformer from Qt to Motif (I have to use Motif and had the idea to code it first in Qt and then translate to motif. If this is done by a transformer pointer faults in Motif could be prevented).

I had to use MFC some years ago for my diploma thesis and used Qt whenever it was possible.

I mentioned the idea to compare MFC and Qt quite funny. To me it is like comparing a bike with an airplane.

I didn't read the whole article as the conclusion is well known to me yet. So I do not understand the people complaining against this. Ok, Qt is not perfect - e.g. it uses pointers yet, needs a precompiler, but is well usable.

I also do not see how to compare Qt with .NET - They have completely different issues. Then it would be better to compare .NET with CORBA and ACE (But then this article would be biased toward ACE ;-) ).

Sven B, on 01/28/2005