[shell-coding] Re: MFC

Indiestep's LSCP is MFC as far as I've seen the last source...
but general litestep seems to be raw (pre-mfc) cpp like in the
unix world!

For what I'm concerned: filesize isn't always better by not
using mfc and it makes programming a bit harder for people who
are used to mfc (like me - I def. like it) but I doubt there's a
real need for using mfc libs while coding a module or even
litestep itself.

Maybe someone can enter the "why we're taking COM out"
description in here? Guess that's why litestep (still) does not
use MFC the way you might be asking for.

my 2 cents - correct me when I'm wrong!

Guess devteam can answer this one better... anyone from the
devteam lurking by any chance?

/*
Mike, mailto:e-sushi@xxxxxxx
http://e-sushi.cjb.net
http://kickme.to/litestep
*/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy P. Valerio" <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: [shell-coding] MFC


> Hey, just wanna know your opinions on MFC and litestep
(modules and
> shell)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Subscription options and archive:
> http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding
>


__________________________________________________
Subscription options and archive:
http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding

Other related posts: