What exactly is WPF, and why is it better than C#?
-
We had a product written in C# (.net 4.0). Albeit there are many downloads, the actual successful install rate is a lot lower. Part of the causes is because .net 4.0 is not installed on a user's machine by default up to Windows 7 and many users either can't install the framework on their own or are not willing to take time to do it. It is strange that Microsoft developed the framework and somehow does not make it easy for a user to use it.
Having way too many emails to deal with? Try our SQLized solution: Email Aggregation Manager[^] which gets your email sorted, found and organized beyond known precision.
True, I've seen that particular issue myself. Strange though, since lots of other "libraries" tend to be packaged together with the app. Take e.g. a game which uses DirectX 10, it would usually have the DX10 installer on its CD as well - to install if the client doesn't have it yet. Usually it would even be "automatic" from the main game's install. Otherwise, you'd need something like the Linux guys have with true application managers: i.e. your distribution simply lists its dependencies and the manager then handles downloading & installing them for you. Would be nice if such was available to Windows apps. Though only for 1st world internet access. Something which irks the $%&# out of me is an install which downloads another, which takes up an hour to transfer - so I can imagine the users stopping this when they become irritated. As for a VM linked into your executable (or packaged together), depends on the size I guess - I'd hate to have to link in an entire JVM/CLI for a "simple" app. Most Lisp implementations actually go about it this way when compiling to EXE: link in the lisp engine. But the more "optimal" lisps would either only link in the actually used parts or convert the lisp in totality to C code and then compile that. But I wouldn't mind too much if the Dot Net 4.0 installer is packaged together on the same CD as the program - might be an issue for install from on-line though.
-
I see. I still wish Microsoft would allow your application to contain every referenced DLL, so people do not have to download the .NET framework.
They used to, which is why so many machines running Win 3.x and Win 95 were broken.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
C# is a language. WPF is a presentation framework (like window's forms). You can use VB, C# or other languages in the creation of applications that use Windows Forms, Silverlight, or WPF for the UI. I'd go with Silverlight (I am actually) since it most closely matches what will be available in Windows 8.
It's "Windows Forms", not "window's forms". Don't write the apostrophe.
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the
Lazy<Dog>. -
I don't think 20MB is a significant size to worry about, no. Actually if you compile it "into the app itself" as you said it would likely be smaller, if you distribute all the libraries as DLLs then the size is more like the 20MB you're referring to (assuming 32-bit and 64-bit libs are included). And C++/MFC code is exactly what I was talking about. Its a case where you can ship with your libraries and not require your framework to be installed separately. Not saying that applies in every case, just that it is a case where you have the ability to do that. Obviously if you're targeting .NET you then have to deal with the runtime install. It is helpful that, if the user is installing windows updates, they'll likely get the framework updates through that. Perhaps the "without regard for deployment" was a bit strong, just expressing my appreciation for being able to just ship the libraries with the app when doing C++/MFC :)
Dave Calkins wrote:
Obviously if you're targeting .NET you then have to deal with the runtime install. It is helpful that, if the user is installing windows updates, they'll likely get the framework updates through that.
Why not use the prerequisite feature in the windows installer? It allows you to bundle a self-installing copy of the required framework with the C# app. As for xcopy installtion, explicitly call out a version of the libraries that was pushed out as a service pack so you're guaranteed it's already in their side-by-side cache... or simpler yet, remove the manifest and let the system use the latest version installed on the user's machine.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
I see. I still wish Microsoft would allow your application to contain every referenced DLL, so people do not have to download the .NET framework.
I wish Microsoft push major .NET Frameworks updates as important updates in Windows Update... ;P
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
We had a product written in C# (.net 4.0). Albeit there are many downloads, the actual successful install rate is a lot lower. Part of the causes is because .net 4.0 is not installed on a user's machine by default up to Windows 7 and many users either can't install the framework on their own or are not willing to take time to do it. It is strange that Microsoft developed the framework and somehow does not make it easy for a user to use it.
Having way too many emails to deal with? Try our SQLized solution: Email Aggregation Manager[^] which gets your email sorted, found and organized beyond known precision.
Perhaps you may want to use an installer that let you name dependencies and install them while they install your program, I work with a .NET 4 program and the installer detects if you have the .NET Framework 4 installed, if you don't it download it from the internet and install it along with this application. If your users normally don't have internet access, then you may want to bundle a full copy of the .NET Framework 4 setup program with yours.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
I've seen this popular thing on here. It's called WPF, I never really looked into it, because I am not into new things. But I've seen some cool things you can create with it. But, what exactly is it, is it different than Forms C#?
Simply put Windows Forms are yesterday. WPF is tomorrow. After many years of Windows Forms I found the learning curve for WPF difficult. After about 6 months of WPF I had to do a Windows Forms again. At that point I found Windows Forms clumsy. I surprised myself. I was hating WPF but going back I found it could really make life easier and in some ways was more powerful. Much of it was that I had fallen in love with binding.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
-
I've seen this popular thing on here. It's called WPF, I never really looked into it, because I am not into new things. But I've seen some cool things you can create with it. But, what exactly is it, is it different than Forms C#?
-
Man, you won't believe, but humanity invented wheel and fire. Don't ask what's that, I'll kill you!
:wtf:
-
I've seen this popular thing on here. It's called WPF, I never really looked into it, because I am not into new things. But I've seen some cool things you can create with it. But, what exactly is it, is it different than Forms C#?
When I first started looking at what WPF could do I thought it would be a great way to make a Rubik's Cube. See this CP article WPF Rubik's Cube[^] for a beautiful working example of WPF in work.
Jim Meadors