How many of you use WPF
-
I'm thinking of just boycotting the technology. Why should I have to learn something new and complicated just for the sake of being up to date? I don't like WPF and how it makes thinks seem messy and more complicated. I should not have to write XML and hoolaguh boolahuh to make a button on a form. WinForms, GDI/+, OpenGL, and DirectX is all we need! Who is with me on this?
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
I agree with you. The question is: how much time should I invest in this new complicated WPF to give my application a better look? does it worth?:confused:
-
You do realize that modern displays require all graphics to be rasterized prior to actually appearing on the screen... right? The advantage of using a vector image as the source and rasterizing only when you know the exact size and resolution that will be required is that you won't distort or lose detail the way you will when scaling a pre-rasterized image.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
You are arguing with a non-professional programmer who thinks a 2000x2000 bitmap is better than a vector for scaling (see above threads.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
CataclysmicQuantum wrote:
I'm thinking of just boycotting the technology.
I better abandon it then, once people hear YOU'RE not using it.... The application that my company sells, uses WPF. Like all new technologies ( or old ones ) it's not perfect. The XAML syntax is too verbose, worse even than VB. There are plenty of bugs in WPF that MS have not fixed despite knowing about them, and some things I regard as design flaws ( there is no facility for managing your own memory, for example, you can't even call Dispose, it's not there ). However, the UI we get from using WPF is a major reason our program has been very successful, with an overwhelmingly positive response and sales beyond our expectations.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
However, the UI we get from using WPF is a major reason our program has been very successful, with an overwhelmingly positive response and sales beyond our expectations.
And you can't argue with that.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
I'm thinking of just boycotting the technology. Why should I have to learn something new and complicated just for the sake of being up to date? I don't like WPF and how it makes thinks seem messy and more complicated. I should not have to write XML and hoolaguh boolahuh to make a button on a form. WinForms, GDI/+, OpenGL, and DirectX is all we need! Who is with me on this?
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
Absolutely 100% with you on this, what the world doesn’t need are more wrappers round current technology. Give a programer a graphics/design/technology/tool and it’s an odds on probability they will come up with a mess (same applies to marketing people!). What user want is something that’s consistent from application to application, by default this is the menu/dialog concept, well covered in MFC/GDI/Winforms. Proof - just look how inefficient and 'hated'(and I really do mean hated!) the Microsoft ribbon is. Sad to see grown men and women virtually crying with frustration over its use! Microsoft has a fundamental problem, too many developers, on pointless projects, why develop WPF when your flagship operating system doesn’t work correctly (Vista). Even SP1 probably breaks more than it fixes, well ok at least file copying now works - maybe one day networking will as well....
-
I don't know what makes you say that, but you're plain wrong. There's nothing stopping you using C to write a Windows app for Vista. If you feel that just because the general UI is flashy, you would think it's better to use WPF, that's your decision, but WPF is just an option, in XP or in Vista.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Dude, you should go back to my original post. I said, "Fortunately, I am still on XP along with my customer base. I don't have to worry so much about silly new three letter acronyms.". You are the one that said "WPF runs on XP". You are the one that brought up WPF in response to my post. So you can run around telling me I am wrong about WPF? Give me a break. I suggest you reread this thread and put some fiber in your diet.
CodeWiz51 -- Life is not a spectator sport. I came to play. Code's Musings | Code's Articles
-
Christian Graus wrote:
There's nothing stopping you using C to write a Windows app for Vista.
I hope there are not people who think this is no longer possible! egad, that would be a big misconception of how things work. You can use C/C++ even FORTRAN if you want, heaven forbid even COBOL is available along with all the sharps. You are free to use several methods of GUIs, several methods of graphics.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
if you really want to be nuts, someone wrote wrappers(??) so you can call win32 from an x86 asm program. :omg:
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always got punched out when I reached 4.... -- El Corazon
-
Ah the voice of reason. Precisely. Technology used for a reason not finding a reason to use the technology :)
The only thing unpredictable about me is just how predictable I'm going to be.
We had a project that we researched using WPF. I decided not to use it becase we had such a tight deadline and some of the controls we needed were not there without using some 3rd party controls (data grid for one). I am also hesitant because we jumped into the whole ASP.NET bandwagon when it first came out. Yeah it had some nice features but we also had to deal alot of problems in the enviroment and a lousy tree control. Given that experience, I would like to only use WPF for small apps until it is a little more mature before using it in a big project.
-
You are arguing with a non-professional programmer who thinks a 2000x2000 bitmap is better than a vector for scaling (see above threads.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
You don't need antialising, or vector graphics on a button.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
Technically, you don't need images, or gradients, or rounded rectangles. Technically, you don't need more than a monochrome display. Humans like pretty things.
-
Yikes! Reading some of that thread reminded me entirely why I avoid the SB like the plague. What a lot of pointless, witless tripe fermenting in there. If I were Chris I'd dump that crap post haste and show the door to anyone who posted some of what I read there.
"The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying." - David Ogilvy
I was just thinking the same thing...in fact, I spent 10 minutes rating or reporting every single reply because I was so disgusted! We're a community of professionals here people! Maybe way to much to assume that we were all taught how to be polite -- but geez! The most important lesson in life....If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. It's kept my butt out of trouble numerous times!
"Tarter Sauce" = a 7yr old's version of "WTF!"
-
I'm thinking of just boycotting the technology. Why should I have to learn something new and complicated just for the sake of being up to date? I don't like WPF and how it makes thinks seem messy and more complicated. I should not have to write XML and hoolaguh boolahuh to make a button on a form. WinForms, GDI/+, OpenGL, and DirectX is all we need! Who is with me on this?
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
This reminds me of a time I complained on this message board about the technology moving too fast for me to keep up. .NET 2.0 had been out for about a year, it seemed, when they started releasing 3.0. I complained on here that they need to wait much longer before releasing another major version as I haven't even come close to learning what is already out there (.NET 2.0 in this case). Another person responded by saying I was stupid for thinking that innovation was bad (in so many words). Hmmm. Now, just because a new version of an existing product is released with some new things, doesn't necessarily mean its pure innovation, right? In any case, I haven't taken much time to look into WPF, or WCF or, what's the other one, ...; I'm still too busy learning .NET 2.0! :)
-
I think ReSharper screwed it up, but even after disabling ReSharper and reverting to VS Intellisense, it still no longer works. I'm sure nothing short of a complete re-install will fix it.
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
Take a look at Karl Shiflett's blog - he details a fix there.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
You don't develop for a living do you?
He said the other day what he does for a living. http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2529900[^]
-
Dude, you should go back to my original post. I said, "Fortunately, I am still on XP along with my customer base. I don't have to worry so much about silly new three letter acronyms.". You are the one that said "WPF runs on XP". You are the one that brought up WPF in response to my post. So you can run around telling me I am wrong about WPF? Give me a break. I suggest you reread this thread and put some fiber in your diet.
CodeWiz51 -- Life is not a spectator sport. I came to play. Code's Musings | Code's Articles
CodeWizard1951 wrote:
I said, "Fortunately, I am still on XP along with my customer base. I don't have to worry so much about silly new three letter acronyms.".
Yes, and that was a silly thing to say, because WPF is equally an option in XP as it is in Vista.
CodeWizard1951 wrote:
You are the one that said "WPF runs on XP".
Correct. It does. Perhaps what you meant is that you expect your XP user base to be ignorant of WPF and therefore you have no pressure on you to learn a new technology that provides seriously powerful, flexible and cool UI.
CodeWizard1951 wrote:
You are the one that brought up WPF in response to my post.
So, you posted in a thread on WPF, mentioned 'silly three letter acronyms', but I brought up WPF ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
CodeWizard1951 wrote:
I said, "Fortunately, I am still on XP along with my customer base. I don't have to worry so much about silly new three letter acronyms.".
Yes, and that was a silly thing to say, because WPF is equally an option in XP as it is in Vista.
CodeWizard1951 wrote:
You are the one that said "WPF runs on XP".
Correct. It does. Perhaps what you meant is that you expect your XP user base to be ignorant of WPF and therefore you have no pressure on you to learn a new technology that provides seriously powerful, flexible and cool UI.
CodeWizard1951 wrote:
You are the one that brought up WPF in response to my post.
So, you posted in a thread on WPF, mentioned 'silly three letter acronyms', but I brought up WPF ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
>>So, you posted in a thread on WPF, mentioned 'silly three letter acronyms', but I brought up WPF ? Yep, that's about the size of it. I posted in a thread asking "How many of you use WPF". I said I wasn't worrying about TLA's. This wasn't a highly technical thread and you managed to turn it into me claiming that WPF had to be used on Vista, which I did not claim at all. I simply said that WPF is far less preferred on XP than on Vista, which is still my opinion. You went on the tell me how I could use C if I wanted to create a user interface on Vista. (Which, by the way I wouldn't want to do. I find dialog resources far more convenient to utilize than building an interface in code from scratch. I built enough of those apps back in the days of Windows 3.1 and I have no desire to return to that regime.) I am eternally grateful to you for letting me know that C can be utilized, as I thought VS 2008 no longer supported MFC, WTL, ATL or any other native technology when programming in Vista. In fact, I thought everyone had to use Iron Python when programming on Vista. Thanks for the repartee. It was real and it was fun, but it wasn't real fun.
CodeWiz51 -- Life is not a spectator sport. I came to play. Code's Musings | Code's Articles
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
You do if the image on the button must remain proportional to the size of the button, the button size can change, and you want it to look decent. Such as in my application which represents components in a piece of equipment using buttons.
If you are using images then vector graphics wont help you any.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
The images on the buttons are drawn using vector graphics :rolleyes:.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I don't use it myself but our application (software for controlling an industrial print machine) uses it.
Why couldn't you design the application without the use of such controls? In the world of programming and application design there are many possibilities to accomplish the goal. I believe a simple bitmap would be a better solution that a 3d rendered control.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
We could have done. But WPF happens to enable a richer UI in our case (it's not just WPF versions of standard UI elements, such as buttons). So we've decided to use it. Why use anything new? Why not write all our code in assembler? I agree we shouldn't use new just for newness' sake. But if there is some advantage to it why not?
Kevin
-
I'm on your side mister, the GUI just needs to enable the user to work efficiently with as little mouse clicks and movements as possible. And it needs to feel natural and logical. Ofcourse it helps if it's not butt ugly too, if you have to stare at it all day it gets kinda tiring if it's bright purple + green.
Wout
-
Darn! I just did my whole site (and wardrobe in fuscia and lime... now you tell me that won't be nice to look at all day? What's a programmer to do?
Me thinks you are kidding us! ;P You are going over pretty old thread by the way!
Wout
-
No more or less than it is on Vista.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )