Building a perfect wpf developer workstation
-
Reading that just convinces me more that it's time to retire.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Reading that just convinces me more that it's time to retire.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
:omfg: "You just specify your UI using XML, it is very simple!"
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
John Cardinal wrote:
All the really good bits of .net are finally coming to fruition.
Did you forget the [sarcasm] tags? Marc
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 -
Gads, and he didn't even mention the friggin' hardware needed to run all that. Why is it so complicated? Why does it require so many half-baked tools and plug-ins and extensions? I get the impression that Microsoft is moving us toward the era of Rube Goldberg programming. Oh wait. We were there already, weren't we? Marc
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 -
Gads, and he didn't even mention the friggin' hardware needed to run all that. Why is it so complicated? Why does it require so many half-baked tools and plug-ins and extensions? I get the impression that Microsoft is moving us toward the era of Rube Goldberg programming. Oh wait. We were there already, weren't we? Marc
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 SmithSurely you're joking. Zero items on that list are required to write wpf applications on vista, it's all just tools and components to make life easier. If someone had posted the same list for MFC development back in the day it would have taken a book to list everything that you would need as a tool or add on to accomplish what you can with wpf and vista out of the box. Ahh never mind, your just being a luddite for self gratification and you know it! ;)
-
:omfg: "You just specify your UI using XML, it is very simple!"
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!peterchen wrote:
You just specify your UI using XML
and then you just ram it through an XSLT, and presto... Version N+1
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Surely you're joking. Zero items on that list are required to write wpf applications on vista, it's all just tools and components to make life easier. If someone had posted the same list for MFC development back in the day it would have taken a book to list everything that you would need as a tool or add on to accomplish what you can with wpf and vista out of the box. Ahh never mind, your just being a luddite for self gratification and you know it! ;)
John Cardinal wrote:
Ahh never mind, your just being a luddite
He's not the only one! ;P
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
:omfg: "You just specify your UI using XML, it is very simple!"
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!peterchen wrote:
"You just specify your UI using XML, it is very simple!"
Whoever said that was lying. I'm currently writing a WPF designer (basically a Cider clone, but hostable in non-VS applications; and one that doesn't crash every thirty seconds :-D ). WPF is both the most complicated and the most powerful UI framework I've seen. Maybe you can hide from the complexity if you only create Windows and UserControls in the designer (similar to Windows Forms), but once you write a custom control or do anything slightly non-standard, you need a to unterstand WPF well. But then again it's possible to write something like a WPF designer as a pure WPF application - no nasty P/Invokes, WndProc overrides or overlay windows for the drag handles that a Windows Forms designer would need.
-
John Cardinal wrote:
Ahh never mind, your just being a luddite
He's not the only one! ;P
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
I haven't started playing with WPF yet, so my observations may be a bit uneducated. However, just from a glance, this appears to be aimed primarily at developing client apps rather than the dreaded browser based "application". If that's truly the case, I hope it catches on like wildfire. What I find is that these days, out on the streets, there just ain't much work for VC++ folks. That's okay, C# is fun too, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are for web development using ASP.NET rather than client Winforms apps. Because I find web development extremely limiting in comparison with native development, this is obviously less than inspiring to me. So, if WPF will renew interest in non browser development, I say fire it up.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
Gads, and he didn't even mention the friggin' hardware needed to run all that. Why is it so complicated? Why does it require so many half-baked tools and plug-ins and extensions? I get the impression that Microsoft is moving us toward the era of Rube Goldberg programming. Oh wait. We were there already, weren't we? Marc
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 SmithIn fairness, having kept up with the Microsoft API of the Week since Visual C++ first came out in the early 90s, I think Mr. Goldberg has probably long since retired due to overwork and exhaustion.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
Surely you're joking. Zero items on that list are required to write wpf applications on vista, it's all just tools and components to make life easier. If someone had posted the same list for MFC development back in the day it would have taken a book to list everything that you would need as a tool or add on to accomplish what you can with wpf and vista out of the box. Ahh never mind, your just being a luddite for self gratification and you know it! ;)
John Cardinal wrote:
your just being a luddite for self gratification and you know it!
Aye, there's the truth of the matter! Marc
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 -
I haven't started playing with WPF yet, so my observations may be a bit uneducated. However, just from a glance, this appears to be aimed primarily at developing client apps rather than the dreaded browser based "application". If that's truly the case, I hope it catches on like wildfire. What I find is that these days, out on the streets, there just ain't much work for VC++ folks. That's okay, C# is fun too, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are for web development using ASP.NET rather than client Winforms apps. Because I find web development extremely limiting in comparison with native development, this is obviously less than inspiring to me. So, if WPF will renew interest in non browser development, I say fire it up.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Christopher Duncan wrote:
developing client apps rather than the dreaded browser based "application".
Actually from my early and not super educated experience with it the one thing I'm really excited about is the ability to build an app once that can be run as a windows client app or through a web browser without changing any code. In theory it could put an end to that debate. The type of web apps I typically need to write are alternative UI's for a winform app and are really heavy so I don't tend to need to do any light asp.net stuff and if this all works as it appears to then it's right up my alley.
-
I haven't started playing with WPF yet, so my observations may be a bit uneducated. However, just from a glance, this appears to be aimed primarily at developing client apps rather than the dreaded browser based "application". If that's truly the case, I hope it catches on like wildfire. What I find is that these days, out on the streets, there just ain't much work for VC++ folks. That's okay, C# is fun too, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are for web development using ASP.NET rather than client Winforms apps. Because I find web development extremely limiting in comparison with native development, this is obviously less than inspiring to me. So, if WPF will renew interest in non browser development, I say fire it up.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Because I find web development extremely limiting in comparison with native development, this is obviously less than inspiring to me.
How so?
-
I haven't started playing with WPF yet, so my observations may be a bit uneducated. However, just from a glance, this appears to be aimed primarily at developing client apps rather than the dreaded browser based "application". If that's truly the case, I hope it catches on like wildfire. What I find is that these days, out on the streets, there just ain't much work for VC++ folks. That's okay, C# is fun too, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are for web development using ASP.NET rather than client Winforms apps. Because I find web development extremely limiting in comparison with native development, this is obviously less than inspiring to me. So, if WPF will renew interest in non browser development, I say fire it up.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Christopher Duncan wrote:
However, just from a glance, this appears to be aimed primarily at developing client apps rather than the dreaded browser based "application".
Not so. It's quite easy to write web apps using WPF. Josh Smith's even running a competition through his blog. Some of the entries are here :- http://joshsmithonwpf.wordpress.com/xbap-submissions/[^]
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
Christopher Duncan wrote:
developing client apps rather than the dreaded browser based "application".
Actually from my early and not super educated experience with it the one thing I'm really excited about is the ability to build an app once that can be run as a windows client app or through a web browser without changing any code. In theory it could put an end to that debate. The type of web apps I typically need to write are alternative UI's for a winform app and are really heavy so I don't tend to need to do any light asp.net stuff and if this all works as it appears to then it's right up my alley.
John Cardinal wrote:
ability to build an app once that can be run as a windows client app or through a web browser without changing any code. In theory it could put an end to that debate.
That does sound interesting, but I don't see how it could escape the trap that cross platform libraries have always encountered: the lowest common denominator. Consequently, it sounds like this scenario would essentially amount to writing a web app (the lowest common denominator) and then spitting out an extremely limited client app. Yuck. On the other hand, if I could write an extremely cool client app using all the horsepower available to me (which is what I miss about web development) and then click a "by the way, generate the best web stuff you're capable of based on this" button and get the web app for free, well, that might be worthwhile. Got any idea which of these two scenarios approaches reality?
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
-
Surely you're joking. Zero items on that list are required to write wpf applications on vista, it's all just tools and components to make life easier. If someone had posted the same list for MFC development back in the day it would have taken a book to list everything that you would need as a tool or add on to accomplish what you can with wpf and vista out of the box. Ahh never mind, your just being a luddite for self gratification and you know it! ;)
John Cardinal wrote:
Zero items on that list are required to write wpf applications on vista, it's all just tools and components to make life easier.
To exaggerate: "You don't need Visual Studio for that, you can write this in Assembler!" (and some people really did) I learnt, and did, MFC with VC++ 5 out of the box and MSDN. The list is scary for one reason: How many developers does it take to write the UI for an mid-size windows application? One? A half? zero point one? Or, to put it another way: In one year, how many developers will be available that are able to provide a commercially viable UI (i.e. doesn't fall over when it encounters a Spanish Windows or a non-standard Installation directory), and still have the skills and time to do something else? And how long will their skills be Industry Standard? Don't get me wrong: WPF looks cool. But turning book pages and slightly rotated note sheets won't get me one customer more. Still, people expect a "standard windows application", and if WPF raises the bar to high, we might be forced to be luddites for the sake of a product.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!
