Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. Being new to programming I'm here to ask experienced programmers what is good and what isn't.

Hi, I'm looking for good online tutorials for C# for beginners. If it matters I want to use it with WPF. Thanks.

modified on Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:18 PM

Thanks for the info Sk93.

Dave Kreskowiak wrote:

Personally, I'd suggest making the app work with the standard controls first, then worry about making it look pretty.

This seems like a good idea if it's not too much work to get everything working with one UI, then change it. Would this be preferable to using the desired UI from the beginning?

modified on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:35 PM

Thanks Dave. So you happen to know how [Krypton](<a href=)[^] ranks in quality and complexity? These are the coolest free controls I've seen, and if feasible and if I don't find any better options, I'd like to use them

Sk93, thanks for the reply. I know my ignorance is showing, but you're saying it complicates things to use custom controls? Can you tell me in what ways and to what degree? Thanks again.

I've never written a program before but I've decided to do one using C#. I want a good looking (and free) UI, and I've decided to use either Windows Forms or WPF. I know WPF is snazzy, but can't a UI built on Windows Forms with only free components look good too? I've read that Paint.net was built on Winforms, but I don't think the UI is very attractive. It's just Windows-style. Are there any fresher looking programs whose UI's show how good Windows Forms can look with all free components? Thanks.

modified on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:12 AM

riced wrote:

How are you going to do that?

Of course I don't know (yet, I hope), but I thought there would be some way the program could find out as it opens if the db was already opened by another instance of the program. Since it is a home-use app, it wouldn't be necessary to know which computer had it open, just that another one did. Am I wrong about the feasibility/possiblity of this?

modified on Monday, July 27, 2009 2:29 PM

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

Especially if they don't know for how long they have to wait.

The message would tell them that they have to wait until the other instance on the other computer is closed. It would be in their house, maybe the other instance is opened by their wife or husband. Sounds ok, no?

Ok, I won't worry too much, but I think I'll go ahead and use a db that works for both purposes. As for the concurrency issue, I'm thinking to avoid the issue all together I would have it so that when a person tries to open the program, the program checks to see if anyone else already has it open anywhere else. If so, the program won't open and gives the person a message like "Program is open on another computer. Close the other instance and try again." I'll have to allow for stale lock data somehow though. But it totally does away with the concurrent editing problem.

I'm looking for links (if possible) to good looking application UI's written using Windows Forms. I am wanting to see how good a program UI built using Win Forms can look, but with free stuff only, of course. Thanks

modified on Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:24 PM

Is there a free IDE for designing a Winforms gui for a C# program? I have a copy of VS 2008 that I got from school, would that work? Also, is Visual C# the same as C#? VS 2008 only doesn't list "C#", only "Visual C#". Thank you.

Thanks. Given the similarity, does that mean that while I code the first version it's not worth concerning myself with the later addition of multi-client capability?

I must not have mentioned it already: I have had this db runnning in Access for over three years and have now decided to write it into a stand alone program. I'm researching and reading and trying to figure out what components and tools to use. I've narrowed the language to VB.NET or C# with a WPF gui. I think the only main part left to narrow and decide is which SQL db to use. That's why I'm asking about the possibility/feasibility of using a local-only db for now but writing the program, etc, in preparation for the multi-client capable db later. Are you saying that I can use any serverless SQL-style db (including Access) now and it won't take too much coding to transition and add the multi-client ability later? Thanks again.

Thanks again Eddy.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

The central question should be whether you need a database-server (as a shared data-repository) or a local datastore (a private data-repository)

For now, for sure, I will only need a local datastore, but I can see that I would like to be able to (later) add the ability to have multiple client front-ends for one the datastore. Can I develop the first version in such a way that I allow myself the ability to later "plug in" multi-client ability with a minimum of rewriting, etc.?

Thanks for the info, Eddy. So, I think I understand. a) using a db with server capability is what front-end/back-end means. They are independent and have to talk to one another (using tools like ADO.NET and LINQ to SQL?) b) there can be multiple clients that connect to a back-end, which is a db with server capabilities c) the db's server ability handles the read, write, change, etc calls from a front-end and sends back whatever is asked for d) if I want to allow more than one PC to connect to the same db, I need a db with server capability Is that right? I'm guessing that choosing a server-capable db means more complicated coding of the program, but would it also mean more difficult deployment (for me) or installation (for the end users), or are there other negatives? Is there any worth to using serverless now (for ease) but coding in such a way that transitioning to server-capable later isn't too bad? Thanks for the link. It's bookmarked and I'll be spending hours there it looks like.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

It means that this person probably doesn't like SQL Server.

He did recommend SQL Server Compact edition, but said that it is serverless. (I tried to confirm this at the MS website but couldn't tell either way) If they're coreect and I understand what you've said, this person must've overlooked that I would want to be able to have multiple clients.

modified on Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:16 PM

Thanks guys. The sharing of the database would definitely only be behind a firewall, although theoretically possibly on different subnets. I like the quality of not needing File Sharing to work. On SQL Express, someone said it 1)is not "in-process" so there is "a hassle deploying the service, etc" 2)is server-less (said as if it is a negative) What do these things mean?

modified on Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:12 PM

I'm trying to determine what software and components, etc, to use to build a program that runs my bank accounts and budget, and I'm choosing products that would allow me the option to sell the product one day if I wanted to. Not in the first version, but later, I'd like for it to allow an installation on a second machine to access the data and run the program using the data on the original computer. How can I build from the beginning to make this functionality as easy as possible to add later. (I am aware that Windows itself will need to allow file sharing) Thank you.

Thanks for all the help David!

Thanks for all the help, David.