WPF--Why? No, Really!
-
So I read most posts in this thread - and to be ernest it's nothing more than "say no to change". What you are missing: WPF, LINQ, WCF, WinForms, WebForms, ASP.NET MVC - those are all just plain tools. Maybe you like them maybe not - MS is not forcing you into using it (this is the job of your customer or company ;) ) Of course not everything is good (WF certainly wasn't) but I love to learn new things (so my job never bores me) and I ever thought most computer guys are just this way (embracing new things - often to quick) - but maybe this changes with age ;P For my part WPF offers some great things - for example the databinding is great - and for me the lack of a good in build editor was never a problem (the guy starting this thread should know this - in the begining days of MFC you had to design your GUI in an external programm too). And I just can't understand how you can not like .NET 3.0/3.5 as a progammer (ok a C# programmer that is) - now we have almost FP like support for functions as data like closures, type inf. etc. LINQ is much more than Linq2Sql - it came along with all the great FP functionality, extension methods and expression parsing (yes I have real world projects using this). F# is on the horizon, ASP.NET MVC just looks like the long looked for solution for ASP.NET programmers doing bigger apps, WCF is really nice and I really get the feeling that MS listens to the community. Really guys what have you been doing? IT is a field where change is the rule - we all knew this as we got us in this mess.
CKnig wrote:
but maybe this changes with age
Probably, I can't just start learning everything new that's out there, there's too much change to digest. So I have become picky about what I think makes sense and what does not. I like many parts of the .NET framework, I like win forms, ASP.NET, .NET remoting, WCF seems ok too.
CKnig wrote:
And I just can't understand how you can not like .NET 3.0/3.5 as a progammer
I should have been more concise in my wording here: I do like most of the C# 3.0 changes, but I don't see the need for a lot of the framework additions. From a user perspective I don't see why I'd need a 200 MB download for .NET 3.5, as opposed to about 22 MB for .NET 2.0. My win forms apps are just fine in .NET 2.0, for the user there's just no compelling reason to require that extra 180 MB download. Also I can use C# 3.0 fine with .NET 2.0 and compile into a .NET 2.0 application, so for the time being (next one or two years) I'm writing apps in this configuration.
Wout
-
I'm just starting to use Linq in teh real world, having avoided it for a while. My opinion (FWIW) Linq is great for shortening the amount of code you need to write when dealing with collections of objects. I suspect it is great for dealing with XML (haven't tried it, but have always wanted to be able to find XML elements simply using some SQL-Like syntax) Behind the scenes, though, what does Linq do? Surely it simply iterates collections looking for the criteria you're selecting on - it doesn't (I presume) have some ingenious way of adding indexes, binary trees etc. to objects to increase search performance. I always get a little nervouse when something is essentially generating code for me, that I can't easily look at. It's not like when you have poorly performing SQL and you can add an index, or a foreign key and improve performance... And Linq to SQL IMHO is another 'gimick' that makes it look like a RAD tool, but isn't really good to be used in the real world where (again, my preference) using Stored Procedures rather than generated SQL gives me maximum control.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
The code generation thingy also makes me very wary of linq. So except for fairly straightforward stuff I'm probably not going to venture very deep into it. Linq to SQL was already deprecated by MS by the way. :doh: I wish they had a sort of trial period of one or two years for components before they actually get absorbed into the .NET framework. Then it wouldn't have gotten to a 200 MB download containing a lot of half baked stuff.
Wout
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
has the last opened project load when VS is started.
I always used to do that until working at my current place - where the psolution is so huge beyond belief that it can take nearly five minutes to open the solution (depending which views are open) - so when I wnt to open up for a new project to jus test something quick, it's a PITA. Alt-F, J, Enter is my friend!
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I'm also the only one on the team that codes for fun at home...
I find this is becoming more common (i.e. fewer people ding it for fun). Having met many up-and-coming programmers at the local uni, I tink it is down to the press that we got when the going was good, so loads of people went into IT for the big bucks, rather than because that was their raison d'etre.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I agree with your observation. Coding seems to have lost the initial lure as a hobby->job and has sunk to being a normal 9-5 type of job for some people. It's also my experience that the guys that don't code at home are also more likely not to do much unit testing on thier own code. Basically, if it compiles, it's good enough to submit to QA. But that's just been my experience.
-
I understand your reaction - I ran into it while I was giving a weekly training seminar on WPF at a client last year. After a couple of years of solid work building WPF apps (and Forms & HTML before that) I can confirm that yes, it's a bit of a learning curve at first. And that it's well worth it, depending upon the characteristics of the project. With the right orientation, one can become more proficient in forging great-looking functional dialogs and custom controls, then with other technologies (incl HTML). The more you utilize it, the more you discover it's hidden power. Eg, with the right tools it's far easier to globalize. You can set thematic properties that apply across your entire project. It's easy to make layouts that respond well to when the user resizes the window. At this point I only use Blend (or ZAM3D) for real graphical portions, or animations: it feels effortless to whip up a competent dialog just by typing in raw XAML. I think it does merit a good introduction, and a good set of books or tutorials, to get properly oriented. That's just my opinion.
James Hurst "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Mahatma Gandhijwhurst wrote:
it feels effortless to whip up a competent dialog just by typing in raw XAML
:laugh:
Wout
-
Like most of you, I spend my days (and many nights) in the trenches, and have for nearly 30 years. I came up through assembly to C through C++ to C#, and a bunch of other stuff as side trips along the way. Having come from a place where there were NO IDE's to ease my pain, I'm supremely grateful for the ability to drag controls onto a form, smoosh 'em around, set some properties and be up and running with a skeleton to flesh out and deliver. I do NOT work with or have access to a graphic artist, nor do I wish to. Anyway, for the last several months on and off, I have attempted to come to grips with WPF, and I've finally arrived at the conclusion that it's just not worth the effort! In general, it's more work and more frustration for MUCH less functionality! Come on, MS! If I want to tinker endlessly with markup, I'll write in HTML, and likely have something that works in much less time and effort. To obtain the same level of useability I get with Windows Forms apps using WPF takes unbelieveable amounts of time and effort. Latest and greatest, my achin' posterior! Am I wrong? What am I missing here, folks?? Too busy for the MS merry-go-round, Duane Doutel
All other things being equal, a WPF app will outperform a Win Forms app. WPF uses DirectX; Win Forms doesn’t; so a WPF app can take advantage of the graphics processor which also benefits the central processor(s). WPF uses vector graphics for improved rendering. And WPF apps can be “one-click” deployed over the Web. Word has it that WPF is the “future” (versus Win Forms); so the sooner one gets on board, the better.
-
Like most of you, I spend my days (and many nights) in the trenches, and have for nearly 30 years. I came up through assembly to C through C++ to C#, and a bunch of other stuff as side trips along the way. Having come from a place where there were NO IDE's to ease my pain, I'm supremely grateful for the ability to drag controls onto a form, smoosh 'em around, set some properties and be up and running with a skeleton to flesh out and deliver. I do NOT work with or have access to a graphic artist, nor do I wish to. Anyway, for the last several months on and off, I have attempted to come to grips with WPF, and I've finally arrived at the conclusion that it's just not worth the effort! In general, it's more work and more frustration for MUCH less functionality! Come on, MS! If I want to tinker endlessly with markup, I'll write in HTML, and likely have something that works in much less time and effort. To obtain the same level of useability I get with Windows Forms apps using WPF takes unbelieveable amounts of time and effort. Latest and greatest, my achin' posterior! Am I wrong? What am I missing here, folks?? Too busy for the MS merry-go-round, Duane Doutel
-
Like most of you, I spend my days (and many nights) in the trenches, and have for nearly 30 years. I came up through assembly to C through C++ to C#, and a bunch of other stuff as side trips along the way. Having come from a place where there were NO IDE's to ease my pain, I'm supremely grateful for the ability to drag controls onto a form, smoosh 'em around, set some properties and be up and running with a skeleton to flesh out and deliver. I do NOT work with or have access to a graphic artist, nor do I wish to. Anyway, for the last several months on and off, I have attempted to come to grips with WPF, and I've finally arrived at the conclusion that it's just not worth the effort! In general, it's more work and more frustration for MUCH less functionality! Come on, MS! If I want to tinker endlessly with markup, I'll write in HTML, and likely have something that works in much less time and effort. To obtain the same level of useability I get with Windows Forms apps using WPF takes unbelieveable amounts of time and effort. Latest and greatest, my achin' posterior! Am I wrong? What am I missing here, folks?? Too busy for the MS merry-go-round, Duane Doutel
I've been spolied by WPF, and now I miss it when I have to code in MFC, Winforms, Win32 or QT. First thing - the code generated by the WPF Designer isn't great, I code all my visual trees by hand, and use templates for visual styling. Databinding is what makes it all worth while, you can even use databinding to control the viewstate, check out this excellent article by Josh Smith Simplifying the WPF TreeView by Using the ViewModel Pattern[^] Once you understand that article it opens windows in your mind. Other than databinding there's easy animations to make nice dynamic interfaces with collapsable panels and stuff, scaling and rotations to allow you to visualize data in new ways, the ability to restyle any control is nice. It does take a month or 2 before it clicks though, and some of the framework could be made a bit simpler, I think Silverlight is heading more down the right path and will probably end up as what WPF should have been.
-
I've been spolied by WPF, and now I miss it when I have to code in MFC, Winforms, Win32 or QT. First thing - the code generated by the WPF Designer isn't great, I code all my visual trees by hand, and use templates for visual styling. Databinding is what makes it all worth while, you can even use databinding to control the viewstate, check out this excellent article by Josh Smith Simplifying the WPF TreeView by Using the ViewModel Pattern[^] Once you understand that article it opens windows in your mind. Other than databinding there's easy animations to make nice dynamic interfaces with collapsable panels and stuff, scaling and rotations to allow you to visualize data in new ways, the ability to restyle any control is nice. It does take a month or 2 before it clicks though, and some of the framework could be made a bit simpler, I think Silverlight is heading more down the right path and will probably end up as what WPF should have been.
-
Like most of you, I spend my days (and many nights) in the trenches, and have for nearly 30 years. I came up through assembly to C through C++ to C#, and a bunch of other stuff as side trips along the way. Having come from a place where there were NO IDE's to ease my pain, I'm supremely grateful for the ability to drag controls onto a form, smoosh 'em around, set some properties and be up and running with a skeleton to flesh out and deliver. I do NOT work with or have access to a graphic artist, nor do I wish to. Anyway, for the last several months on and off, I have attempted to come to grips with WPF, and I've finally arrived at the conclusion that it's just not worth the effort! In general, it's more work and more frustration for MUCH less functionality! Come on, MS! If I want to tinker endlessly with markup, I'll write in HTML, and likely have something that works in much less time and effort. To obtain the same level of useability I get with Windows Forms apps using WPF takes unbelieveable amounts of time and effort. Latest and greatest, my achin' posterior! Am I wrong? What am I missing here, folks?? Too busy for the MS merry-go-round, Duane Doutel
I'm not affiliated with the following site, but I've always found it a pretty good resource for learning things .Net related. I wholeheartedly recommend a lifetime membership. www.learnvisualstudio.net They currently have a series on WPF. It's 5 videos so far. It uses Blend and VS 2008 so if you can't get ahold of both of those you are wasting your time. You could probably get away with the C# Express Edition 2008 of VS, but there is nothing like that for Blend. It kind of annoyed me they used both of those tools, but it's good to see how they are meant to be used. Here's a direct link to the series page: http://www.learnvisualstudio.net/content/series/Windows_Presentation_Foundation_301.aspx[^]
-
ddoutel wrote:
and I've finally arrived at the conclusion that it's just not worth the effort
Welcome to the club. There are apparently great improvements in VS2010, so your efforts so far may not be in vain. Others recommend Expression Blend as a solution but AFAIK it is not a free option.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
Henry Minute wrote:
Others recommend Expression Blend as a solution but AFAIK it is not a free option.
I am a Microsoft Action Pack Subscriber. By taking a simple open-book exam I was able to get the Microsoft Expression Suite along with VS2K8 Std at no additional cost. Unfortunately I haven't had much use for it yet but I thought I would pass along the (almost) free option. The Action Pack costs me $299/yr and gets me about 8 times more Microsoft software than I can use. (No. I am not a shill for Microsoft.) Edwin
-
Henry Minute wrote:
Others recommend Expression Blend as a solution but AFAIK it is not a free option.
I am a Microsoft Action Pack Subscriber. By taking a simple open-book exam I was able to get the Microsoft Expression Suite along with VS2K8 Std at no additional cost. Unfortunately I haven't had much use for it yet but I thought I would pass along the (almost) free option. The Action Pack costs me $299/yr and gets me about 8 times more Microsoft software than I can use. (No. I am not a shill for Microsoft.) Edwin
Good to know. Thanks!
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
ddoutel wrote:
Am I wrong?
No.
ddoutel wrote:
What am I missing here, folks??
You're missing the need to be a real programmer. MS is trying to dumb it down so that anyone that's ever written HTML in a web page can feel empowered to write an enterprise-level application. Feel free to join the rest of us that hate WPF.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
MS is trying to dumb it down so that anyone that's ever written HTML in a web page can feel empowered to write an enterprise-level application
That's exactly what I felt when I had my first experience with WPF. I also feel this way when I see tools that automate tasks you can do by writing code. That is why I also hate Reporting Services, that takes control out of you. Don't even mention infopath forms when I'm in the room. Even some some WinForms components I'd rather not use, and do it in hand. It is easier to debug and recover and again, gives you more control over the way things work (Like, SqlConnection, DataSet, etc)
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
MS is trying to dumb it down so that anyone that's ever written HTML in a web page can feel empowered to write an enterprise-level application.
That a framework can be accused simultaneously of being too complex and too dumbed down shows that it truly is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't kind of situation for MS.
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: MS is trying to dumb it down so that anyone that's ever written HTML in a web page can feel empowered to write an enterprise-level application. That a framework can be accused simultaneously of being too complex and too dumbed down shows that it truly is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't kind of situation for MS.
IMHO the problem with dumbing it down is that it makes it much more difficult to figure out when something doesn't work like you want. I.E. it's hard to figure out why it won't start if you can't get the hood up. Edwin
-
Like most of you, I spend my days (and many nights) in the trenches, and have for nearly 30 years. I came up through assembly to C through C++ to C#, and a bunch of other stuff as side trips along the way. Having come from a place where there were NO IDE's to ease my pain, I'm supremely grateful for the ability to drag controls onto a form, smoosh 'em around, set some properties and be up and running with a skeleton to flesh out and deliver. I do NOT work with or have access to a graphic artist, nor do I wish to. Anyway, for the last several months on and off, I have attempted to come to grips with WPF, and I've finally arrived at the conclusion that it's just not worth the effort! In general, it's more work and more frustration for MUCH less functionality! Come on, MS! If I want to tinker endlessly with markup, I'll write in HTML, and likely have something that works in much less time and effort. To obtain the same level of useability I get with Windows Forms apps using WPF takes unbelieveable amounts of time and effort. Latest and greatest, my achin' posterior! Am I wrong? What am I missing here, folks?? Too busy for the MS merry-go-round, Duane Doutel
Oh my G-d..... And I thougth that I was alone in feeling the way I feel about WPF. I also have close to 30 years in the trenches. After reading all the marketing materials about WPF I decided that this would be the next "it". I started playing around with it and in concept it's not a bad idea at all. Or is it? Why push all the properties of a control to XAML when you can keep them in the properties window? Why am I being forced now to remember all the properties and settings for control when beforehand all I had to do was scroll up and down that properties window? At least give me some decent intellisense... I believe in simplicity. If I cannot bind data to a grid and lay it out the way I need it at design time, then I'm not interested. Maybe it's because the WPF controls are not mature yet. Besides, what is really the advantage of all XAML? I was reading an MS article thattells you what to do when your XAML gets so big that it chokes the visual designer. Their soulution? Easy. Hide the visual designer and work only in XAML? So what happened to the "visual" in Visual Studio?
-
Like most of you, I spend my days (and many nights) in the trenches, and have for nearly 30 years. I came up through assembly to C through C++ to C#, and a bunch of other stuff as side trips along the way. Having come from a place where there were NO IDE's to ease my pain, I'm supremely grateful for the ability to drag controls onto a form, smoosh 'em around, set some properties and be up and running with a skeleton to flesh out and deliver. I do NOT work with or have access to a graphic artist, nor do I wish to. Anyway, for the last several months on and off, I have attempted to come to grips with WPF, and I've finally arrived at the conclusion that it's just not worth the effort! In general, it's more work and more frustration for MUCH less functionality! Come on, MS! If I want to tinker endlessly with markup, I'll write in HTML, and likely have something that works in much less time and effort. To obtain the same level of useability I get with Windows Forms apps using WPF takes unbelieveable amounts of time and effort. Latest and greatest, my achin' posterior! Am I wrong? What am I missing here, folks?? Too busy for the MS merry-go-round, Duane Doutel
U should look for WPF features, is evolution in UX, windows forms was a basic ui platform but now you can do anything you can imagine for ui with WPF from simple buttons to video, multimedia, 3D and DirectX controls and visuals not to mention flow documents where you can manipulate any openXML format like word documents, now days interfaces should be more usable for the user because of the so much information they handle good UX translates to better Software
-
Maybe I'm getting old and resistant to change! But let us know if you find compelling arguments for moving over to WPF/linq. As a business app developer I'm not so much charmed by fancy looks or elegant looking short syntax, I just need to get the job done quick and not run into an obscure dead (albeit advanced) end (like if you started on linq to sql? Tough luck!).
Wout
I think you should really look at what LINQ offers (i think you know lambda expressions and linq to objects already) in conjuntion with Entity Framework and ADO.NET Data Services it's a new way to handle data in todays data centric applications, no way you get the job done faster with traditional sql techniques than using correctle these technologies
-
ddoutel wrote:
What am I missing here, folks?
I suspect that XAML, unlike HTML, was designed to be machine-generated (good luck finding a machine to generate it just the way you want it... Anyone doing forms entirely in Expression yet?). WPF however, can be used without XAML, and stands a reasonably good chance of being The Way Forward when it comes to graphics APIs on Windows. At least until the Windows team puts their foot down and completely refuses to use it. BTW: the correct place for rants is The Soapbox 2.0
Shog9 wrote:
BTW: the correct place for rants is The Soapbox 2.0
Or bill@windows.com :-D
-
I'm just starting to use Linq in teh real world, having avoided it for a while. My opinion (FWIW) Linq is great for shortening the amount of code you need to write when dealing with collections of objects. I suspect it is great for dealing with XML (haven't tried it, but have always wanted to be able to find XML elements simply using some SQL-Like syntax) Behind the scenes, though, what does Linq do? Surely it simply iterates collections looking for the criteria you're selecting on - it doesn't (I presume) have some ingenious way of adding indexes, binary trees etc. to objects to increase search performance. I always get a little nervouse when something is essentially generating code for me, that I can't easily look at. It's not like when you have poorly performing SQL and you can add an index, or a foreign key and improve performance... And Linq to SQL IMHO is another 'gimick' that makes it look like a RAD tool, but isn't really good to be used in the real world where (again, my preference) using Stored Procedures rather than generated SQL gives me maximum control.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
LINQ understands very well with SQL as i think you dont know that, LINQ is not for replacing SQL in fact you can use all of the features at database level in conjuntion with LINQ however most people missunderstands what LINQ is, behind the scenes LINQ is sql but i dont imagine how much time you take to build traditional code, and what LINQ does for you besides the control for what you get for the code in terms of the language of your choice that's priceless in time and performance
-
CKnig wrote:
but maybe this changes with age
Probably, I can't just start learning everything new that's out there, there's too much change to digest. So I have become picky about what I think makes sense and what does not. I like many parts of the .NET framework, I like win forms, ASP.NET, .NET remoting, WCF seems ok too.
CKnig wrote:
And I just can't understand how you can not like .NET 3.0/3.5 as a progammer
I should have been more concise in my wording here: I do like most of the C# 3.0 changes, but I don't see the need for a lot of the framework additions. From a user perspective I don't see why I'd need a 200 MB download for .NET 3.5, as opposed to about 22 MB for .NET 2.0. My win forms apps are just fine in .NET 2.0, for the user there's just no compelling reason to require that extra 180 MB download. Also I can use C# 3.0 fine with .NET 2.0 and compile into a .NET 2.0 application, so for the time being (next one or two years) I'm writing apps in this configuration.
Wout
Well im a programmer that really uses alll of C# 3.0 features in real world projects, what you should do with C# 2.0 you can do it better, more elegant, and more compact with C# 3.0 features, i think you are giving your user more mb for your code and less value than just that tinny difference within .net 2 and .net 3.5 sizes (and in todays storage thats not to worry about! comn)
-
Oh my G-d..... And I thougth that I was alone in feeling the way I feel about WPF. I also have close to 30 years in the trenches. After reading all the marketing materials about WPF I decided that this would be the next "it". I started playing around with it and in concept it's not a bad idea at all. Or is it? Why push all the properties of a control to XAML when you can keep them in the properties window? Why am I being forced now to remember all the properties and settings for control when beforehand all I had to do was scroll up and down that properties window? At least give me some decent intellisense... I believe in simplicity. If I cannot bind data to a grid and lay it out the way I need it at design time, then I'm not interested. Maybe it's because the WPF controls are not mature yet. Besides, what is really the advantage of all XAML? I was reading an MS article thattells you what to do when your XAML gets so big that it chokes the visual designer. Their soulution? Easy. Hide the visual designer and work only in XAML? So what happened to the "visual" in Visual Studio?
First, i thing you folks are too old to understand the advantages of WPF they are so many you have not giving your time to study it in deep as i can see Second properties have intellisense in xaml besides there is a properties pannel for alll properties of the control Third! you can bind data to a grid and lay it out the way you need at design time! however using the designer to do that is just for noobs i code every single part of the interface in xaml and believe is faster than layout with the designer, Fourth. WPF controls are extremley mature now, and you should take a look at WPF toolkit Fifth. If XAML gets too big well you are a noob programmer who places alll of the UI in a single xaml/cs file! you should learn a bit about Model-View-ViewModel Pattern or even better Composite Application Library from Microsoft