How to find a Windows app developer?
-
To deride it for what? Publishing to it is harder than for Android. Why? Microsoft actually has security and quality standards. Google allows ANYTHING that compiles to be posted to Google Play Store. Sure, it may get taken down later when they find the porn or cryptocurrency malware, but Google encourage crap apps to go there to bolster the numbers.
-
Exactly. If the tools are adequate for the task at hand, why change them?
Ad astra - both ways!
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
If the tools are adequate for the task at hand, why change them?
Because of course that is simplistic. I did work at a company sometime ago where a contract required an update to an app running on Windows 3.1 written in Visual C++ 1.52. The only way we succeeded was because I am a technology packrat and so I had the CDs (not DVDs) with that environment. I still do. The company did not and no one else at the company did either. And I threw out the 3.5 inch disks with Borland C++ on it quite some time ago so no going back on that one. Same is true for something like Java 6. Apps still exist but the VM is no longer supported. So one risks leaving security holes open unless one wants to patch them in house. Even things like timezone changes would need to be patched in house. Beyond that one must also be able to hire someone to keep maintaining it because those with experience either move on, retire or even die. I spent years with C but even quite a while ago I found going back to it very difficult. So difficult that my solution actually was pseudo OO rather than structured because I found it impossible to think in structured terms. Nothing wrong with the application that I was working on, but the skills to use it did not exist (I was the one most qualified to work on it by far.)
-
Ah gotcha. Well I could try making that list a little broader because yes obviously someone with a background like yours - even a year ago - would be a shoo in. Thanks for the insight!
You might want to look at restructuring it with 'required' and 'desired'. But even so I would expect a long timeline on a hire and if that isn't going to work then you might want to look for someone that is enthusiastic and with a demonstrated ability to learn.
-
Sharp Ninja wrote:
To deride it for what?
Ok, clearly, you're either trolling or in denial. I'm out. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.
It was an honest question. I have worked with Windows Store/UWP apps since Windows 8.1. I've followed the progression of the APIs, the changes to permissions in the various versions and ultimately the integration with .Net Standard 2, which gives you a multitude more programming cases and designs to fit those cases than in previous versions. What gets me is the assertions that if I like something that someone else doesn't then I must be . Or I could take the easy route and nod in agreement and then take a shower.
-
It was an honest question. I have worked with Windows Store/UWP apps since Windows 8.1. I've followed the progression of the APIs, the changes to permissions in the various versions and ultimately the integration with .Net Standard 2, which gives you a multitude more programming cases and designs to fit those cases than in previous versions. What gets me is the assertions that if I like something that someone else doesn't then I must be . Or I could take the easy route and nod in agreement and then take a shower.
Ok, here's the thing: I'm a life-long Windows software developer. Going back to DOS in fact. Some would call me a fanboi. While I'd *love* to say the future is UWP, even the Microsoft evangelists will readily admit that adoption is nowhere near to what they'd like it to be. You've got to ask yourself, why is that. There's probably a bit of a catch-22 in the answer. I just find it very uninspiring. I find UIs today to be a serious step back, all in the name of "keeping things simple". However - and this is all my own opinion - based on what've seen, simplicity apparently comes at the cost of functionality, or (if you're lucky) the equivalent functionality requires more clicks to get the same thing done. I'm just not a fan of what's being proposed as the "desktop replacement".
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
If the tools are adequate for the task at hand, why change them?
Because of course that is simplistic. I did work at a company sometime ago where a contract required an update to an app running on Windows 3.1 written in Visual C++ 1.52. The only way we succeeded was because I am a technology packrat and so I had the CDs (not DVDs) with that environment. I still do. The company did not and no one else at the company did either. And I threw out the 3.5 inch disks with Borland C++ on it quite some time ago so no going back on that one. Same is true for something like Java 6. Apps still exist but the VM is no longer supported. So one risks leaving security holes open unless one wants to patch them in house. Even things like timezone changes would need to be patched in house. Beyond that one must also be able to hire someone to keep maintaining it because those with experience either move on, retire or even die. I spent years with C but even quite a while ago I found going back to it very difficult. So difficult that my solution actually was pseudo OO rather than structured because I found it impossible to think in structured terms. Nothing wrong with the application that I was working on, but the skills to use it did not exist (I was the one most qualified to work on it by far.)
If you intend to accept contracts requiring maintenance of legacy software, you naturally must keep the necessary tools and runtime environments. No argument there. My original point was directed more at new development. I do not believe that using the latest (and supposedly greatest) framework is always necessary or desirable. If an older framework is still supported by the tool chain, and it meets the requirements - there is no benefit to writing the application using the latest buzzword technology.
Ad astra - both ways!
-
I found your job posting on ZipRecruiter. I think the primary turnoff (for me anyway) is that the position is "temporary". How temporary is it?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Is it me or are Windows application developers becoming an endangered species? My company needed a web developer earlier this year and found a great one in only about two weeks through ZipRecruiter. Now we need a Windows desktop/UWP/Xamarin developer and haven't gotten a single qualified applicant. (Plenty of people with web experience apply, apparently without reading the job requirements). Has anyone else gone through this? Any tips?
I'd be someone that would be "close" to hitting the reqs, in that I can develop WinForms C#, but alas I had decided a while back to stop chasing all of Micro$oft's API updates. Perhaps a lot of other Windows hackers like Yours Truly have decided the same. I do know that in the good old days, I did not have to have "paid experience" in every single requirement to get a gig; as long as I had the main one, the client would let me learn what I needed to on the job. But clients have gotten used to not having to do that anymore, so I have "early retired".
-
Tomaž Štih wrote:
p.s. Don't use web developers. They have radically different mindset, they work with gazillion of frameworks, don't know strong typing, storyboard their life, and inject'n'pattern everything that moves. That's all very nice, and cool too, but you don't use a wrench to cut hair. And beware of "standard control" freaks. They don't innovate and their software looks like living DevExpress mutant from the 90ties, with 20 switchable fluorescent control skins that scare the sh*t out of you, and without any catchy innovative approach that makes your app stand out. You'll recognize them by bloated data-modeling and raping you with screen wireframes.
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. WPF lends itself well to multi-tiered architecture, but UWP is even better. As a matter of fact, following Microsoft's development guidelines for UWP provides a VERY rich and consistent user interface paradigm (something that iOS, but no so much Android thrives upon) which will become very natural in the future, especially since the Win32 versions of Office are about to become extinct. Web development of SPA and ASP.Net MVC is not much different than UWP development. With UWP now being run from DotNet Core, you can even use that back end and put it in the app and have a distributed app that is self contained and can work offline, simply syncing with servers as networking becomes available. You CANNOT do that easily with Web, and hardly anybody does it with mobile. UWP is far more powerful than any other framework out there. Also, with WebAssembly starting to take off, the days of Javascript/Bootstrap/Angular hell are numbered, and those same skills will be directly applicable to UWP as much a WebAssembly. And those "dinosaur" C++ developers have a VERY good platform with UWP to continue their careers as UWP has a very good support for COM objects interacting with the new Windows API from C++.
-
If you intend to accept contracts requiring maintenance of legacy software, you naturally must keep the necessary tools and runtime environments. No argument there. My original point was directed more at new development. I do not believe that using the latest (and supposedly greatest) framework is always necessary or desirable. If an older framework is still supported by the tool chain, and it meets the requirements - there is no benefit to writing the application using the latest buzzword technology.
Ad astra - both ways!