Are you developing with WPF?

Chris Buckett

Josh Smith wrote:

some folks will use WPF in a disasterous way. But some won't.

Just like with web design 5 years ago - there were some very well designed websites, but many more badly designed ones. (Maybe that's why MS doesn't want developers to get hold of Expression - they don't want us making bad graphics) - perhaps you have to be wearing a polo-neck or chunky-knitwear to be allowed to use it. :-D.

ChrisB ChrisDoesDev[^]

Marc Clifton

Josh Smith wrote:

I've created an app for a modeling agency in WPF and it turned out great (imo).

Ah, ok. So, WPF fits a niche (or if you prefer, vertical markets) that emphasize presentation to begin with?

Josh Smith wrote:

It depends on how you use it.

The same can be said for a microwave. ;P But will WPF be as ubiquitous as a microwave? (a big red flag should be raised here, seeing that, besides not owning a TV, I also do not own a microwave :) ) Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

Josh Smith

Marc Clifton wrote:

Ah, ok. So, WPF fits a niche (or if you prefer, vertical markets) that emphasize presentation to begin with?

Not necessarily. WPF will be great for data visualizations used by traders, scientists, etc. Take a look at the New York Times Reader app (100% WPF). That's another great example of WPF put to use to make a functional/practical application look great.

:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. - Aristotle

oozer

I don't think many developers will touch it until Microsoft releases the graphical designer tools in a useable state. XAML is an exceptionally verbose way to specify a user interface - I don't see many people wanting to write it by hand, not for a serious application anyway. I also have concerns over the amount of code necessary to manipulate the WPF object model programmatically compared to Windows Forms apps. Add to that the fact that developers have already learned a heap of new stuff for C#/VB.NET, Windows Forms/ASP.NET, I think there's a general feeling of "oh no, not another new technology" from Windows developers. Developers don't mind learning new stuff if there is a big benefit but I don't think people are seeing what the benefit is at the present time.

code frog 0

No but I frequently use WTF.:-D

Paul Watson

Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:

For my product it does not make any sense to have a glittering UI.

Glittering no, good yes. Don't get left behind Rama or you'll find your customers being wowed and converted to UIs that not only work well but look good too.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Shog9 wrote:

I don't see it happening, at least not until it becomes pointless.

Rama Krishna Vavilala

I would love too. But I don't have a talented graphics designer like you working at my company. :((

Paul Watson

LOL, thanks Rama and I am glad you understand the importance of it. And I am a pretty crap graphics designer, that isn't even my job really. I'm "the web guy" :-D

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Shog9 wrote:

I don't see it happening, at least not until it becomes pointless.

Marc Clifton

code-frog wrote:

but I frequently use WTF.

Careful, Microsoft might hijack that acronym for their upcoming Windows Template Foundation. ;P Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

Ed Poore

Your right there, for me it could be put to use but in the time taken to learn how to do what I can accomplish now I could do it the old way anyway. The nice thing I like about it is the content templates so you can extend the treeview, listview etc very easily. I could really use that for the project I'm about to complete now.

Ed Poore

Josh Smith wrote:

I've created an app for a modeling agency in WPF and it turned out great (imo).

Screenshots allowed?

Ed Poore

:laugh:

Josh Smith

Ed.Poore wrote:

Screenshots allowed?

It will be in a video by MSFT (I can't say which one yet). The video be on the web soon enough (prbly Channel9). :cool:

:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. - Aristotle

Stuart Dootson

Nope - no .NET at all - I can't rely on the runtime being available and admin-requiring installs are a no-no. So, it's native code (in C++) all the way - oh, and the standard UI of the tools I write is the command-line :-) - it suits the type of tool and environment that I target 90% of the time, anyway.

Ed Poore

Josh Smith wrote:

It will be in a video by MSFT

Even better, let us know when it's posted.

Scott Dorman

Getting ready to start a project that will *probably* use WPF. I have been experimenting with it for the last few days, and so far I have been impressed with the results. The developer support for it is pretty bad right now, but I'm sure that will improve with time. We do have a UI "expert" but he is more on the usability side. We are looking at WPF for it's skinning capabilities and it's compositional nature. There will probably end up being some eye candy that creeps in but we are going to try to keep it to a minimum.

----------------------------- In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.

Rocky Moore

I sure plan to when I can find the time to really focus on it. There is a lot more to it than just making things pretty. But for some examples, you might check out some of Josh Smith articles on the topic and his blog. As an example though: http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/CustomTreeViewLayout.asp[^] While I do not have specific use for such a layout, it is amazing how flexible the UI is allow you far more options in building out a GUI than the simple controls provided with Windows. The UI is finally wide open and easy to build things such as animations with little effort. I personally think that a UI is as important as the middle and backend of an application and the more power we can apply the better. Of course, it does depend on how people use it :) As a side note, depending on the app, eye candy can make it more friendly and inviting not to mention, make it sell. I remember Gizmos98 (IIRC the name correctly). That seem to sell quickly at $50 each while providing very little in functionality, it sold basically because of eye candy.

Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?