From: tmoran@acm.org
Subject: Re: thick? thin? binding
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:25:45 GMT
Date: 2002-06-19T20:25:45+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dN5Q8.1041$693.94556458@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: aeqn6l$9f20t$1@ID-100557.news.dfncis.de
> So the MFC is a thick binding from Win32-C-API to C++ ? :-)
Yes.
> This also means thick binding is better but slower.
It means it gains the usual Ada benefits, and it usually means it's at a
higher abstraction level, but the additional overhead is usually swamped
by the time spent inside Windows (or whatever) system calls. Most of a
Windows binding is to IO - especially human speed GUI IO - which is slow
anyway.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-19 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-19 18:53 thick? thin? binding Immanuel Scholz
2002-06-19 19:22 ` tmoran
2002-06-19 19:27 ` Stephen Leake
2002-06-19 19:50 ` Immanuel Scholz
2002-06-19 20:25 ` tmoran [this message]
2002-06-19 19:27 ` chris.danx
2002-06-19 19:28 ` Stephen Leake
2002-06-20 14:12 ` Ted Dennison
2002-06-21 1:29 ` David Emery
2002-06-26 0:23 ` tmoran
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox