|
|
Interesting. I think there's things they are not considering. For example, Facebook has become a big part of many people's social lives. I can't see it going away without being replaced by something, and the biggest hurdle to any new alternative, is that it would need to work in such a way, that everyone who is on Facebook, was automatically ON it. Google+ was very nice, but why use it when your friends are not on there ?
Christian Graus
My new article series is all about SQL !!!
|
|
|
|
|
As a non participant I don't have a great investment in the outcome. I think however there is a very predictable cycle to all tech products. What will replace it - who knows. It did itself arrive as the fittest species of many attempting to fill a niche which few realised existed.
The next generation will probably appear in the same way.
Peter Wasser
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: Interesting. I think there's things they are not considering. For example, Facebook has become a big part of many people's social lives. I can't see it going away without being replaced by something, and the biggest hurdle to any new alternative, is that it would need to work in such a way, that everyone who is on Facebook, was automatically ON it. Google+ was very nice, but why use it when your friends are not on there ?
I agree or so revolutionary that everyone flocks to it int droves.
|
|
|
|
|
OR something happens that makes people abandon FB in droves.
Christian Graus
My new article series is all about SQL !!!
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a Common Sense virus spreads throughout the world...
|
|
|
|
|
That one is well and truly eradicated.
Peter Wasser
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: but why use it when your friends are not on there ?
If you don't have any then it's the perfect place for Norman to hang out. 
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
Not before time.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
I know I'm late to this game, but ..... WPF WTF?
 An impenetrable object model...
A million-and-one different ways to do everything...
Brings all the horrors of CSS to application development...
I'm waiting to see some advantage...
Thank-you! 
|
|
|
|
|
If you have a copy of Visual Studio 2010 handy, you could check out MVVM in the Box and the accompanying video, helps WPF go down a little easier!
Well fads they come and fads they go.
And God I love that rock and roll!
Well the point was fast but it was too blunt to miss.
Life handed us a paycheck, we said, "We worked harder than this!"
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this - looks like it might be a good primer. Just have to find time to look at it!
|
|
|
|
|
It definitely takes some getting used to. Pretty steep learning curve.
|
|
|
|
|
I also started late, thinking the same things you have above.
But, once you get used to how it all works, and realize the power behind doing it, things become a lot easier and your UI's a lot cooler
|
|
|
|
|
I recommend Pro WPF 4.5 in C#[^] by Matthew MacDonald. I used an earlier edition to learn WPF, and it helped a lot.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
IMO - Don't start with how it should look - start with what it should do and let that drive how it should look. (It is still hard work but a bit less so)
|
|
|
|
|
 Sorry I had to laugh at this reply! Unfortunately, the project I'm working on is used to produce a user-configurable graphic for use elsewhere. It doesn't "do" anything, and is in fact all about how it should look!
|
|
|
|
|
I do LOB in Silverloght (WPFs little brother for the web) and have to now look at MVC with all it's attendant tools (CSS, javascript, knockout, bootstrap, kendo etc). Makes WPF seem simple.
Mind you I consider graphics development the most difficult and would not even attempt what you are learning on, give me business data any day!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. WPF is a lot simpler when compared to doing something equivalent for the web. There are too many frameworks and too many moving parts with web development, I find it a pain. Makes me appreciate what Microsoft has done to streamline desktop development.
|
|
|
|
|
WPF is pretty cool. I will agree that it has flaws, and the lack of 'dispose' methods on objects is certainly one of them. But, having videos and other UI elements all on the same canvas is a huge advantage in some applications.
Christian Graus
My new article series is all about SQL !!!
|
|
|
|
|
Kyudos wrote: I'm waiting to see some advantage...
I'm waiting for it to go away.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
The results available with WPF can be great.
The way to achieve those results is a pain in the backside.
When someone develops a GUI tool to effectively edit XAML it will be a vast improvement.
Personally I don't think that is now ever going to happen and Xaml will eventually die.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed - the ridiculous verbosity of XAML makes if very unwieldy.
|
|
|
|
|
What are you missing in the XAML editor? I prefer to write XAML instead of using the designer and I think it is faster than doing the same with WinForms in the WinForms designer.
I can't see the "ridiculous verbosity of XAML". You write the properties which you would set in the property window for WinForms.
If you have a look at the generated WinForms code, that is ridiculous verbosity.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously writing Xaml is faster than writing Winforms purely in code - but thee designer for Winforms works and works reasonably well.
The designer for Xaml is slow, buggy, crashes frequently, caches some stuff that require a restart of VS to fix, doesn't handle some things at all - so you need to resort to editing Xaml.
Now for a simple form with a few controls, that's all good. For a complex control with many many panels, grids, lists etc. changing the layout is a nightmare - just negotiating the Xaml can be a nightmare because VS2010 takes so damn long to parse the Xaml (even when not displaying the view) that one loses the will to live waiting for it!
Christian Wulff wrote: ridiculous verbosity of XAML
It wasn't me that said it - but I can see what people mean. it is verbose.
Sure you only set the same properties you would by using the forms designer and setting properties - but again the designer lets you down by making it necessary to hand-write much of it rather than using a good tool to save you mucking up the level of curly braces etc.
Christian Wulff wrote: If you have a look at the generated WinForms code, that is ridiculous verbosity.
Absolutely. But, then, you don't need to because the designer works.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
