Desktop vs Web Development
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Thanks to the stateless HTTP protocol...
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
Well put. I seem to run into quite a bit of ASP.Net work because the client wants easy deployment and they won't even consider a desktop application. It is almost like we forgot that we can use differnt tools if they fit the job better. The good part is I am staying busy but it is a little frustrating forcing everything to be a web app. For the hug well ahhhh any doughnuts left.
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
Actually, I think it is that web development has been in the dark ages for so long, that it still has a long way to come. Just compare ASP.NET solution compared to an old cgi based solution. Even thought that was a big step, I think a bigger step is on the horizon and line between web and desktop development will blur. I know that just the use of web controls (user controls or whatever, just the idea of segmenting up a page) brought a lot of change to the web development. There are several places that are now offering a form of client side development API integration to make your web apps work more like desktop apps. Of course, the desktop world could take some ideas from the web world and look more into portal applications where a desktop application could be built by the end user from simply through in different modules that allow for in place configuration ;) I do agree about the desktop apps though. If I need to verify how a given chuck of code will work, I usually just throw open a WinForm project and drop in the code ;) Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
:) Much of my work is web development... but it has been great to be able to build back-end data components for desktop analysis applications, then to reuse those components *without change* in web projects. I'll have to tell my boss about "Give a Web Developer a Hug" day... except she keeps bringing me coffee, which might be even better ;-) Yea, I think I'll just shut up about it...
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Frankly i had to read that several times to make sure i read it right. I then came to the conclusion that what you meant to say, i hope, was that desktop UI development is easier. In terms of coding effort, web development tends to be heavy on interface, light on engine, whereas any desktop app of significant size will be the opposite. So for someone like myself, that does a lot of engine coding, i would make the opposite statement. However, i would be fine with May 18 being GAWDAH. Lord knows you people whine enough that if we didn't give you your day we'd never hear the end of it. ;) ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
Have you considered a Desktop application (e.g., Dekstop Bob) acessing a CP web service? Browser access would only bring you the "basic" features. More advanced features would be only available through a desktop application... Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
We can give each other a hug. I have been doing some desktop apps lately and while it is a good deal easier in many ways I keep yearning to use markup to do the UI. It drives me dippy when I dock some panels and then later on need to add in a status bar or left-docked panel. With markup (like MyXAML or XAML) that is dead easy, but with the windows forms way I normally end up re-doing the whole UI rather than trying to dig through the code placing the panel in the right place with the right docking. Microsoft are merging the two fields though IMO. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Chris Maunder wrote: "I'd rather cover myself in honey and lie on an ant's nest than commit myself to it publicly." Jon Sagara replied: "I think we've all been in that situation before." Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Chris Maunder wrote: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Frankly i had to read that several times to make sure i read it right. I then came to the conclusion that what you meant to say, i hope, was that desktop UI development is easier. In terms of coding effort, web development tends to be heavy on interface, light on engine, whereas any desktop app of significant size will be the opposite. So for someone like myself, that does a lot of engine coding, i would make the opposite statement. However, i would be fine with May 18 being GAWDAH. Lord knows you people whine enough that if we didn't give you your day we'd never hear the end of it. ;) ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
cmk wrote: In terms of coding effort, web development tends to be heavy on interface, light on engine, whereas any desktop app of significant size will be the opposite. Not necessarily. Any web project of significant size will also have a sizeable engine, but I do uinderstand what you mean. You are far more likely to write a graphics engine or GIS system as a desktop engine than a web app. Still, with more and more applications becoming distributed I see the gap between typical back-end complexity disappearing. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
I agree. I hope web application development becomes easier in the future because I feel it's decades behind desktop applications. Perhaps Longhorn could change all that. I have a symbiotic relationship with my computer.
maybe XAML the way out ? "Courage choose who will follow, Fate choose who will lead" - Lord Gunner, Septerra Core "Press any key to continue, where's the ANY key ?" - Homer Simpsons Drinking gives me amazing powers of insight. I can solve all the worlds problems when drunk, but can never remember the solutions in the morning. - Michael P Butler to Paul Watson on 12/08/03
-
OK, if there's a webdeveloperette in sight, I'll hug her. And I'll buy her even a doughnut. And a coffee.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenWho said romance is dead ? ;) The tigress is here :-D
-
cmk wrote: In terms of coding effort, web development tends to be heavy on interface, light on engine, whereas any desktop app of significant size will be the opposite. Not necessarily. Any web project of significant size will also have a sizeable engine, but I do uinderstand what you mean. You are far more likely to write a graphics engine or GIS system as a desktop engine than a web app. Still, with more and more applications becoming distributed I see the gap between typical back-end complexity disappearing. cheers, Chris Maunder
Really back to heavy or light client. Chris Maunder wrote: but I do uinderstand what you mean. You are far more likely to write a graphics engine or GIS system as a desktop engine than a web app. Yes I would love to see a CAD/FEM application done as a web app. Real time views, sorry but the band width is not there. Chris Maunder wrote: Still, with more and more applications becoming distributed I see the gap between typical back-end complexity disappearing. Hey, maybe there is something to this Web Services stuff. You could even use them for both web apps and heavy clients? Let non-browsers use the network also! What will they think of next. :doh: OK better not rant. :sigh: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
We can give each other a hug. I have been doing some desktop apps lately and while it is a good deal easier in many ways I keep yearning to use markup to do the UI. It drives me dippy when I dock some panels and then later on need to add in a status bar or left-docked panel. With markup (like MyXAML or XAML) that is dead easy, but with the windows forms way I normally end up re-doing the whole UI rather than trying to dig through the code placing the panel in the right place with the right docking. Microsoft are merging the two fields though IMO. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Chris Maunder wrote: "I'd rather cover myself in honey and lie on an ant's nest than commit myself to it publicly." Jon Sagara replied: "I think we've all been in that situation before." Crikey! ain't life grand?
Paul Watson wrote: We can give each other a hug. Locally I think a handshake would be better recieved. :rolleyes: Can not even hug my little boy anymore. :sigh: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
Okay, well, first of all let me just state openly that I won't be hugging you. I'm thinking that just can't be good for either of our reputations. I was going to make a rather off color remark about high heels and short skirts, but then my little sister walked into the room, and, well, you know... That being said, I couldn't agree more, although my own web development experience is far, far less than yours. Wait, maybe that's why it's much less. I love the benefits of the Internet, and I truly enjoy well designed and implemented web sites, but oh, what a pain in the posterior it is to deal with! Writing networked applications using a web browser is like trying to build a sky scraper with Legos (tm). As Rosebud, the Basselope from Bloom County once put it, "I'd rather be drug across carpet tacks and dipped in rubbing alcohol." The doughnuts, however, are on me. :-D Christopher Duncan Today's Corporate Battle Tactic Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
-
Paul Watson wrote: We can give each other a hug. Locally I think a handshake would be better recieved. :rolleyes: Can not even hug my little boy anymore. :sigh: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Can not even hug my little boy anymore. :sigh: I hope this is due to him feeling he is too big for this rather than some politically correct crap. I'm sick and tired of all this shit getting in the road of being a loving parent. I shit stir, tickle and play with both my kids (7 year old boy, 4 year old girl) and dare any arsehole to get between them and me. Same goes with this you can't hit your kids crap, my kids feck up big enough they cop a hiding, I don't care if it's in the shops or at home. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So i had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
I've hit the point with the rewrite where there is enough of an infrastructure with the new system that it's far, far quicker for me to start using the .NET components I've written than use the older ASP codebase when writing quick utilities. For me, the most useful part aspect of using .NET is that it is painfully easy to write components that will work both in a web page and in a desktop application. Goodbye COM components, you won't be missed. It also means that I am more likely to write a desktop application (yes, a real live one) instead of a quick VB Script when I feel the need for a command line. Which brings me to my point: Desktop development is so, So, SO much easier than web development. Drag a button, add a handler, slap on a progress control (you mean I can have the control update without updating the entire page? Without using IFRAMEs? Sweet!), no worries about state management, browser issues, font sizes, contortioned CSS or server load. I can't believe it's been such a long time since I wrote a desktop application that I simply forgot what a breeze it was. Wild. I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: I hereby vote we call May 18 "Give a Web Developer a Hug" Day. Or at least some of your spare change or that last doughnut. They've earned it. I second the motion. :-D Silence is golden, so shut the heck up!
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Can not even hug my little boy anymore. :sigh: I hope this is due to him feeling he is too big for this rather than some politically correct crap. I'm sick and tired of all this shit getting in the road of being a loving parent. I shit stir, tickle and play with both my kids (7 year old boy, 4 year old girl) and dare any arsehole to get between them and me. Same goes with this you can't hit your kids crap, my kids feck up big enough they cop a hiding, I don't care if it's in the shops or at home. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So i had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote: I hope this is due to him feeling he is too big Hang on Michael! Yes he is 17 and 6 foot plus. So it is just not manly for his age group. OK. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Michael Martin wrote: I hope this is due to him feeling he is too big Hang on Michael! Yes he is 17 and 6 foot plus. So it is just not manly for his age group. OK. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Hang on Michael! Yes he is 17 and 6 foot plus. So it is just not manly for his age group. OK. Fair enough then, I can understand (and remember) how he feels. I just thought it was a case of political correctness gone mad. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So i had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004