Annoyed..
-
VS 2005 introduced lots of new objects, classes, etc... Mostly all the tutorials MS gives you are drag and drop (things that can be done at design time). They leave the part out how to actually make it do something useful. After playing around and using the intelisense/object explorer, reading posts etc.. I can figure the new stuff out. But jeeze, why not actually put coding examples in the tutorials section, any idiot can figure out design time stuff... On a side note, I love the new generic collections (tons of mindless code, be gone!) :-) Matthew Hazlett
-
VS 2005 introduced lots of new objects, classes, etc... Mostly all the tutorials MS gives you are drag and drop (things that can be done at design time). They leave the part out how to actually make it do something useful. After playing around and using the intelisense/object explorer, reading posts etc.. I can figure the new stuff out. But jeeze, why not actually put coding examples in the tutorials section, any idiot can figure out design time stuff... On a side note, I love the new generic collections (tons of mindless code, be gone!) :-) Matthew Hazlett
Matthew Hazlett wrote:
After playing around and using the intelisense/object explorer, reading posts etc.. I can figure the new stuff out. But jeeze, why not actually put coding examples in the tutorials section, any idiot can figure out design time stuff...
It's the trend. Infragistics and DevExpress have been doing this all along. Seems that actually writing/reading code examples is going the way of the dodo bird. No, what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers. Who cares about actually understanding how something actually works, optimizing your code, making it elegant, easy to maintain, and so on. OOD? What's that? Marc Pensieve
-
Matthew Hazlett wrote:
After playing around and using the intelisense/object explorer, reading posts etc.. I can figure the new stuff out. But jeeze, why not actually put coding examples in the tutorials section, any idiot can figure out design time stuff...
It's the trend. Infragistics and DevExpress have been doing this all along. Seems that actually writing/reading code examples is going the way of the dodo bird. No, what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers. Who cares about actually understanding how something actually works, optimizing your code, making it elegant, easy to maintain, and so on. OOD? What's that? Marc Pensieve
So true. The last of a dying breed, we are. Michael Flanakin Web Log
-
So true. The last of a dying breed, we are. Michael Flanakin Web Log
-
Matthew Hazlett wrote:
After playing around and using the intelisense/object explorer, reading posts etc.. I can figure the new stuff out. But jeeze, why not actually put coding examples in the tutorials section, any idiot can figure out design time stuff...
It's the trend. Infragistics and DevExpress have been doing this all along. Seems that actually writing/reading code examples is going the way of the dodo bird. No, what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers. Who cares about actually understanding how something actually works, optimizing your code, making it elegant, easy to maintain, and so on. OOD? What's that? Marc Pensieve
Marc Clifton wrote:
No, what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers
I don't think they'll get far. Where I work the work is varied. At the moment I'm dealing with Apache & CGI scripts and looking at the possiblity of hooking all that in to a .NET application. Just before Christmas I was dealing with XSLT. We pick up various open source projects that are useful to the work we do so I've got experience with CruiseControl.NET, NAnt, NUnit, NMock, NDoc and so on. One guy is reviewing NHibernate to see if it will be useful so I may gain that at some point. And thats on top of C#, SQL Server 2000, and a whole bunch of other Microsoft technologies. Being able to deal with all that is mostly a result of understanding how something is working. I've tried drag-and-drop stuff in Visual Studio and, quite frankly, it sucks! The code it produces is horrible, it makes unit testing a PITA, it isn't layered properly, its difficult to modify. I will admit that VS2005 has many improvments in that area. But there is still a long way to go before I can use it to quickly create some useable code which I can then, without trouble, modify it to fit my task and have it fit my application architecture. I think that is the main problem. The stuff the drag & drop and wizards do don't fit easily into a good enterprise application architecture - It shoves database code right in the GUI X| I hear that you can now databind properly to business objects in VS2005 - It'll be good to try that out to see if it is any good. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
-
Matthew Hazlett wrote:
After playing around and using the intelisense/object explorer, reading posts etc.. I can figure the new stuff out. But jeeze, why not actually put coding examples in the tutorials section, any idiot can figure out design time stuff...
It's the trend. Infragistics and DevExpress have been doing this all along. Seems that actually writing/reading code examples is going the way of the dodo bird. No, what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers. Who cares about actually understanding how something actually works, optimizing your code, making it elegant, easy to maintain, and so on. OOD? What's that? Marc Pensieve
Marc Clifton wrote:
what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers.
And there's nothing wrong with that. I hate reinventing the wheel for something that a drag-n-drop component should just do for me. In fact, I've spent countless hours developing such components for myself and for others here on CodeProject.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Who cares about actually understanding how something actually works, optimizing your code, making it elegant, easy to maintain, and so on. OOD? What's that?
Component-based programming (a la drag-n-drop and forget it) does not exclude these things. If anything, it makes them easier to do since you typically end up writing less code that you then need to "understand, optimize, make elegant, maintainable, and so on". Regards, Alvaro
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers.
And there's nothing wrong with that. I hate reinventing the wheel for something that a drag-n-drop component should just do for me. In fact, I've spent countless hours developing such components for myself and for others here on CodeProject.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Who cares about actually understanding how something actually works, optimizing your code, making it elegant, easy to maintain, and so on. OOD? What's that?
Component-based programming (a la drag-n-drop and forget it) does not exclude these things. If anything, it makes them easier to do since you typically end up writing less code that you then need to "understand, optimize, make elegant, maintainable, and so on". Regards, Alvaro
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And there's nothing wrong with that. I hate reinventing the wheel for something that a drag-n-drop component should just do for me. In fact, I've spent countless hours developing such components for myself and for others here on CodeProject.
Thats all well and good till something goes wrong and you have no idea why :-) But I agree, component programming is cool, but thats not really what we are talking about. Case in point, in VS.NET 2k5, you can have a SQLDataSource, just drag it out to your project and configure it, Right? But suppose you need to use the object in your code, dragging and dropping won't help you here. But -- this is noticeably absent from the basic tutorials. BTW: You can do this by: Dim DataTable as DataTable = Ctype(SQLDataSource1.Select(new DataSourceSelectArguments), DataView).Table But that's not in the tutorial anywhere, yet, I bet its somthing everyone wants to do and would like to know :-) Matthew Hazlett
-
please cough...
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And there's nothing wrong with that. I hate reinventing the wheel for something that a drag-n-drop component should just do for me. In fact, I've spent countless hours developing such components for myself and for others here on CodeProject.
Thats all well and good till something goes wrong and you have no idea why :-) But I agree, component programming is cool, but thats not really what we are talking about. Case in point, in VS.NET 2k5, you can have a SQLDataSource, just drag it out to your project and configure it, Right? But suppose you need to use the object in your code, dragging and dropping won't help you here. But -- this is noticeably absent from the basic tutorials. BTW: You can do this by: Dim DataTable as DataTable = Ctype(SQLDataSource1.Select(new DataSourceSelectArguments), DataView).Table But that's not in the tutorial anywhere, yet, I bet its somthing everyone wants to do and would like to know :-) Matthew Hazlett
No problem, you just create a form at the beginning of your program where you drag all the components you need, and make it invisibe.
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Matthew Hazlett wrote:
After playing around and using the intelisense/object explorer, reading posts etc.. I can figure the new stuff out. But jeeze, why not actually put coding examples in the tutorials section, any idiot can figure out design time stuff...
It's the trend. Infragistics and DevExpress have been doing this all along. Seems that actually writing/reading code examples is going the way of the dodo bird. No, what the dumbed down coders of today want is drag, drop, and forget designers. Who cares about actually understanding how something actually works, optimizing your code, making it elegant, easy to maintain, and so on. OOD? What's that? Marc Pensieve
Marc Clifton wrote:
Infragistics and DevExpress
Ummm...what have you been smoking? ;) I use both HEAVILY and they have a shitload of code examples, perhaps you're not looking in the right places.
"Hello, hello, what's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here! This is a Local Shop for Local People, there's nothing for you here!" -Edward Tattsyrup
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And there's nothing wrong with that. I hate reinventing the wheel for something that a drag-n-drop component should just do for me. In fact, I've spent countless hours developing such components for myself and for others here on CodeProject.
Thats all well and good till something goes wrong and you have no idea why :-) But I agree, component programming is cool, but thats not really what we are talking about. Case in point, in VS.NET 2k5, you can have a SQLDataSource, just drag it out to your project and configure it, Right? But suppose you need to use the object in your code, dragging and dropping won't help you here. But -- this is noticeably absent from the basic tutorials. BTW: You can do this by: Dim DataTable as DataTable = Ctype(SQLDataSource1.Select(new DataSourceSelectArguments), DataView).Table But that's not in the tutorial anywhere, yet, I bet its somthing everyone wants to do and would like to know :-) Matthew Hazlett
Matthew Hazlett wrote:
.NET 2k5, you can have a SQLDataSource, just drag it out to your project and configure
That stuff is horrible in vs.net2k3 as well, sounds like nothing has changed. I remember the first time I tried dragging a query from a sql server onto a form and the unbelievable amount of redundant code it created.
"Hello, hello, what's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here! This is a Local Shop for Local People, there's nothing for you here!" -Edward Tattsyrup
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Infragistics and DevExpress
Ummm...what have you been smoking? ;) I use both HEAVILY and they have a shitload of code examples, perhaps you're not looking in the right places.
"Hello, hello, what's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here! This is a Local Shop for Local People, there's nothing for you here!" -Edward Tattsyrup
John Cardinal wrote:
I use both HEAVILY and they have a shitload of code examples, perhaps you're not looking in the right places.
They have tons of examples created from the designer. OK, I'll take that back. DevExpress actually has examples for both designer-created and "manually" created, but still heavily weighted toward the designer, from what I remember. Marc Pensieve