#Borland OWL vs. MFC
Greetings…
I've got a customer who wants me to "shift" over to Borland's C++/OWL
(basically port a project that's almost finished) because Borland supports
templates. I know of MFC's "templdef" (haven't used it; can't rightly say I'd
look forward to using it either, but…), but I'm looking for other factors to
convince them to stay with VC++:
I've heard/read that VC 2.0 will have ANSI template support – but is VC 2.0
appropriate for Win 3.1 development?
I've read (the ads) that compare execution performance – clearly in VC's favor.
The fact that the MFC source is distributed is important – is this also the
case for OWL?
If any of you sage developers can comment on these factors or others that might
be pertinent, I'd be very grateful. I've invested enough into getting a handle
on MSVC that I don't wanna pack it up so fast.
Also anyone with OWL experience (especially templates), I'd love to hear some
of your thoughts/battle stories/etc.
Carl