OWL uses C++ to encapsulate much of the Windows API into object-oriented classes. Common user interface (UI) elements in a Windows programs (buttons, menus, toolbars) are represented by classes that can serve as bases for derived objects. This way, programmer's can act on UI elements as if they were objects, as opposed to continuously messing with all nuances that the raw API demands--such as handles, device contexts, and window registering.

OWL does a lot with Windows. It represents a Windows application as an object. It encapsulates windows as objects. It overrides the << and >> operators to simplify serialization. It provides abstraction for OLE operations. It even has full support for document/view applications.

Simply put, it's almost the exact description people use to also describe MFC, the Microsoft Foundation Classes.

The similarities between OWL and MFC are stunning. If you take most of the common MFC control classes (CEdit, CButton, CStatic) and replaced the C's with T's, you would have an application written in OWL. It should be noted that OWL 1.0 did come out before MFC 1.0 in 1992.

Many programmer's still consider the OWL framework more elegant and simple to code for. From a design point of view, OWL is a clear winner: it doesn't depend on macros nearly as much as MFC, it's more consistent across the classes, and it represented true object-orientation. Borland successfully ported OWL to OS/2 at one point. Microsoft's attempt at a Macintosh MFC port proved hopeless.

However, MFC became the clear winner in the marketplace. It happened because:

• Any new features Microsoft introduced into Windows were encapsulated with MFC well before any other class libraries could catch up.
• Programmers already familiar with the raw Windows API could more easily transition to MFC than with other libraries.
• Microsoft provides the full source code of MFC with the product.
• Many more third-party developers built add-ons to MFC than OWL.

Borland continually had to play catch up with Microsoft. Microsoft, having exclusive access to the code that would eventually find its way into released Windows versions, always had the leg up on Borland.

Borland doesn't support OWL anymore, and hasn't since 1996. At one point, Borland had to agree with Microsoft not to develop OWL anymore in exchange for some API support. Borland's C++ Builder now uses MFC by default.

Owl (?), n. [AS. le; akin to D. uil, OHG. wila, G. eule, Icel. ugla, Sw. ugla, Dan. ugle.]

1. Zool.

Any cpecies of raptorial birds of the family Strigidae. They have large eyes and ears, and a conspicuous circle of feathers around each eye. They are mostly nocturnal in their habits.

⇒ Some species have erectile tufts of feathers on the head. The feathers are soft and somewhat downy. The species are numerous. See Barn owl, Burrowing owl, Eared owl, Hawk owl, Horned owl, Screech owl, Snowy owl, under Barn�x3c; Burrowing, etc.

⇒ In the Scriptures the owl is commonly associated with desolation; poets and story-tellers introduce it as a bird of ill omen. . . . The Greeks and Romans made it the emblem of wisdom, and sacred to Minerva, -- and indeed its large head and solemn eyes give it an air of wisdom.

Am. Cyc.

2. Zool.

A variety of the domestic pigeon.

Owl monkey Zool., any one of several species of South American nocturnal monkeys of the genus Nyctipithecus. They have very large eyes. Called also durukuli. -- Owl moth () Zool., a very large moth (Erebus strix). The expanse of its wings is over ten inches. -- Owl parrot Zool., the kakapo. -- Sea owl Zool., the lumpfish. -- Owl train, a cant name for certain railway trains whose run is in the nighttime.

© Webster 1913.

Owl, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Owled (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Owling.]

1.

To pry about; to prowl.

2.

To carry wool or sheep out of England.

⇒ This was formerly illegal, and was done chiefly by night.

3.

Hence, to carry on any contraband trade.

© Webster 1913.