WPF, love it or hate it?
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
What I don't like about it, is that often people (mis)use it to make obscenely flashy programs. What kind of value does that add to a program? IMO none at all, unless it's your purpose to make it look like an ad. Also I really don't like the way it nearly forces ClearType on you, why should it ignore a system-wide setting? ClearType looks like rainbows on CRT screens, so those of us who still have them (they're cheap, and with the crisis and all..) are stuck with applications with rainbowy text.
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
I love it. It's quite a learning curve compared to WinForms, especially with XAML and the new Blend tool (we're programmers, not designers). But I'm having grief with Silverlight and its limitations... :sigh:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
I've tried really hard to like it but I keep falling back to the hate side. The concepts in WPF would be great if it wasn't wrapped up in XAML. I fricken hate XAML. So instead of having something like a nice InitializeComponent method where you can see the code being written for you, WPF takes your XAML and craps out a mysterious .g file behind the scenes. Want to debug or look at that? Good Luck. And oh yes, there will be compile problems in your .g file at least once a week. Then you have to stare at your XAML and wonder why, no error displayed in there. For me WPF could be a great technology if it wasn't ruined by XAML. You can pull off most of what WPF has to offer without XAML but good luck finding examples for that. Good display technology, horribly broken interface. There is also no visual inheritance to speak of. You can hack your way to something close to visual inheritance but it's just not the same. I give it a D-.
-
I love it. It's quite a learning curve compared to WinForms, especially with XAML and the new Blend tool (we're programmers, not designers). But I'm having grief with Silverlight and its limitations... :sigh:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
Edbert P wrote:
we're programmers, not designers
Now that's my problem. I'm a data centric developer, I'm bloody hopeless at good GUI design (the reason I hate the web - all presentation) and WPF seems to be all about GUI. I have all my GUIs set up for late binding and no longer have to think about it and along comes WPF which wants let me bind EVERYTHING. Bloody new fangled technologies, MS always putting up new toys to play with and you can never be sure which ones will last grumble grumble mutter mutter
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
I used WPF in a couple of small open-source projects and one midsize LOB app. I'm generally impressed with the results, though I wouldn't recommend WPF for, e.g., writing VS plug-ins. I still stick to WinForms for these applications.
-
I've tried really hard to like it but I keep falling back to the hate side. The concepts in WPF would be great if it wasn't wrapped up in XAML. I fricken hate XAML. So instead of having something like a nice InitializeComponent method where you can see the code being written for you, WPF takes your XAML and craps out a mysterious .g file behind the scenes. Want to debug or look at that? Good Luck. And oh yes, there will be compile problems in your .g file at least once a week. Then you have to stare at your XAML and wonder why, no error displayed in there. For me WPF could be a great technology if it wasn't ruined by XAML. You can pull off most of what WPF has to offer without XAML but good luck finding examples for that. Good display technology, horribly broken interface. There is also no visual inheritance to speak of. You can hack your way to something close to visual inheritance but it's just not the same. I give it a D-.
That's my biggest gripe with it as well. Why use XML? honestly! Things would be so much simpler to understand if it used a format that was more tailored to the purpose. XAML is so exceedingly hard to read, one wonders why it was done that way. I'm sure there are lots of good technical reasons, it is just a shame is all. WPF has so many great concepts, but some parts of it are just mind bogglingly frustrating.
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
I love it!!! But I still have to find the "wow" factor. Cause I like it while developing on windows application. But don't like on web application. It behaves like downloading a ActiveX control on your computer to run the web page. Any how I am a novice on WPF...
Regards Anil
-
I love it!!! But I still have to find the "wow" factor. Cause I like it while developing on windows application. But don't like on web application. It behaves like downloading a ActiveX control on your computer to run the web page. Any how I am a novice on WPF...
Regards Anil
-
I've tried really hard to like it but I keep falling back to the hate side. The concepts in WPF would be great if it wasn't wrapped up in XAML. I fricken hate XAML. So instead of having something like a nice InitializeComponent method where you can see the code being written for you, WPF takes your XAML and craps out a mysterious .g file behind the scenes. Want to debug or look at that? Good Luck. And oh yes, there will be compile problems in your .g file at least once a week. Then you have to stare at your XAML and wonder why, no error displayed in there. For me WPF could be a great technology if it wasn't ruined by XAML. You can pull off most of what WPF has to offer without XAML but good luck finding examples for that. Good display technology, horribly broken interface. There is also no visual inheritance to speak of. You can hack your way to something close to visual inheritance but it's just not the same. I give it a D-.
Well if you think you must use XAML to use WPF, then you should go back and learn more about it. You really do not have to do that, although it is very convenient and elegant when used correctly. All the classes used in WPF are part of the dotnet framework so you can do everything manually if this is your vehicle of choice, but XAML will help keep complexity down.
thrakazog wrote:
There is also no visual inheritance
There is actually visual inheritance, although it could be improved. This is what templates are about.
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
My experience so far, it's great for business and non business apps that have rich UI. What lets WPF down it when it comes to process large amounts of information. For example I have a SQL studio written in Winforms that uses a custom listview for output/results, using the listview in WPF is 50% slower, this is purely down to the way WPF presents and renders UI and data. I thought going direct through DirectX would improved performance.
Software Kinetics - Moving software
-
Well, WPF is built on DirectX. which means that any traditional limitations of controls, don't exist. It means all controls are integrated. It means you can draw a control any way you like. It also means you can animate things, such as windows that fly open, tabs that animate shut, etc.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
windows that fly open, tabs that animate shut
X| I just want an interface that works quickly and cleanly. Animations are the first thing to go. No matter how powerful a machine I get it will always be displaying the simplest interface I can make the OS display.
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
I like it. Being a web developer mainly, I find it WPF to be a much more natural way of doing desktop apps than WinForms, MFC etc. Obviously it is not as mature as WinForms, but is has some very nice ideas. For example the concept of using composition in the UI is absolutely wonderful. I also like the command concept, although it is a bit rough on the edges (no built in undo for example). The resolution independence is also nice - although it is a bit more complex than that in real life. Data binding is also nice. How one can use resources and styles is also very nice. Basically WPF combines the best of web and traditional desktop application development.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Christian Graus wrote:
windows that fly open, tabs that animate shut
X| I just want an interface that works quickly and cleanly. Animations are the first thing to go. No matter how powerful a machine I get it will always be displaying the simplest interface I can make the OS display.
Simplest isn't always best for everybody. Animations as visual cues for things changing is incredibly useful in learning and every day use. So many times I've clicked on a menu item or a button and something change on the screen but I was too slow to catch it. Animation helps people link actions to results. Animations for animations sake though - waste of time. But animation as part of a useful design - very useful stuff!
-
Well if you think you must use XAML to use WPF, then you should go back and learn more about it. You really do not have to do that, although it is very convenient and elegant when used correctly. All the classes used in WPF are part of the dotnet framework so you can do everything manually if this is your vehicle of choice, but XAML will help keep complexity down.
thrakazog wrote:
There is also no visual inheritance
There is actually visual inheritance, although it could be improved. This is what templates are about.
You are right, you don't HAVE to use XAML, but when all the tools surrounding WPF all revolve around XAML, the choices are limited. XAML is okay, I just wish there was something better.
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
Hate it. I like Adobe's Flex platform much more. Databinding is much more intuitive, controls can be styled with regular CSS and I feel it provides more seperation between layers. Flex feels like a presentation layer. To me WPF feels like a mix between presentation and biz logic. Animations render far more smoothly in Flex as well. WPF doesn't do what you expect it to do sometimes given the XAML I'm staring at - therefore I've renamed it WTF. The Expressions stuff is odd - difficult to figure out.
-
WPF sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if it's worth the learning curve. Has anyone here actually used it successfully? Any positive or negative comments?
DP
That's actually a tough call. Here are the facts: * It's far more capable than WinForms, and is undoubtedly the "next generation". * It's complicated as hell, and will no doubt frustrate you beyond measure in your attempt to learn it. So it's a toss-up. If you really want a "chewy" app with all sorts of fancy capabilities, then I would say it's worth the pain learning it, but if you don't need it, it's not at a point where I can wholeheartedly say go out and learn it already, because I know how much it hurts. :P I will say this though: I love what I can do with it, but I hate how I have to go about doing it.
Sad but true: 4/3 of Americans have difficulty with simple fractions. There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't. {o,o}.oO( Check out my blog! ) |)””’) http://pihole.org/ -”-”-
-
What is it about WPF that gives it a "Wow" advantage over using standard controls? I've heard comments like this, but I don't understand the difference. I'm sure that's because I know little about WPF at this point, but I'd love it if you could elaborate.
DP
Two things that I think were done exceptionally well in WPF are the layout model and the content model. I love the choices we have in designing a declarative, dynamic layout (StackPanels, DockPanels, WrapPanels, Grid) rather than the comparatively limited layout options in WinForms. It makes designing the dynamic resizing of a window in WPF a breeze. The content model is equally as great, as it allows you to embed anything inside any content control, like adding custom user controls inside a button or tab header for example, or pictures with transforms. You aren't limited to supporting only media types that the control designer intended, as you are with WinForms. It's completely universal. You can even embed blocks of custom content into a flow document, and have text flow around it and stuff.
Sad but true: 4/3 of Americans have difficulty with simple fractions. There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't. {o,o}.oO( Check out my blog! ) |)””’) http://pihole.org/ -”-”-
-
I have, in small apps. I like it. The declarativeness, the ease of binding data to the UI.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. While I agree the DataBinding is certainly powerful (and can, in certain scenarios be very simple), there are cases where the binding syntax can become quite horrific indeed. For example, imagine something like this:
-
Edbert P wrote:
we're programmers, not designers
Now that's my problem. I'm a data centric developer, I'm bloody hopeless at good GUI design (the reason I hate the web - all presentation) and WPF seems to be all about GUI. I have all my GUIs set up for late binding and no longer have to think about it and along comes WPF which wants let me bind EVERYTHING. Bloody new fangled technologies, MS always putting up new toys to play with and you can never be sure which ones will last grumble grumble mutter mutter
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Well, it is called Windows Presentation Foundation ;)
Sad but true: 4/3 of Americans have difficulty with simple fractions. There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't. {o,o}.oO( Check out my blog! ) |)””’) http://pihole.org/ -”-”-
-
That's my biggest gripe with it as well. Why use XML? honestly! Things would be so much simpler to understand if it used a format that was more tailored to the purpose. XAML is so exceedingly hard to read, one wonders why it was done that way. I'm sure there are lots of good technical reasons, it is just a shame is all. WPF has so many great concepts, but some parts of it are just mind bogglingly frustrating.
I wholeheartedly agree. XML is a horrible syntax to type by hand, even with Intellisense. I also strongly recommend Pete O'Hanlon's MoXAML Power Toys[^] if you do a lot of work with XAML/WPF as it allows proper XAML commenting and auto-generation of DependencyProperties.
Sad but true: 4/3 of Americans have difficulty with simple fractions. There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't. {o,o}.oO( Check out my blog! ) |)””’) http://pihole.org/ -”-”-