|
I talked to a young contractor here at work who wore one of those silicone rings. He and his wife are really into lifting weights & working out. He said it's a trendy thing within his social group of hard-core exercise people to get those rings. He said it's primarily for the practical reason of not having to worry about getting your finger caught when, say, doing pullups, but there's also the financial/social agreement not to expect "2 months salary" for a ring. It's interesting because I agree about wedding ring expense being such a pointless waste of money, but in my social circle I'm shouting against the wind; if I just started wearing one, my wife would be angry/offended, I would get endless weird looks, all that. I would love it if they would come around to this way of thinking but it'll never happen. However, if their entire subculture/clique has all agreed that this is acceptable for them, then it's one more forced-purchase they can cast off, which is wonderful. (I've tried to do a similar thing for birthdays and Christmas gifts--I always suggest that we get gifts for kids, but do away with gift exchanges between adults, who so clearly don't really care about it, but the powerful of the social tradition is just too strong to break away from; nobody has the courage to break from it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: impressive still.
Very! 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
You mean APOD. I thought Apod was a new apple music device. 
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I wrote: Not the Apod. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wake up, loungers, I'm ready to rant. 
Just wanted to let you all know that I've just read another angle on databinding and <GRATUITOUS EXAGGERATION >it is as we all know : A SCAM!! </GRATUITOUS EXAGGERATION >
All the frameworks say it works, but I say, Databinding data-schminding.
Doesn't Work Much Or At All
Actually, when you dig into it and begin to get it working you find: "a lot of it just doesn't work that great or at all."
I've found this to be true on Win Forms, Android dev, iOS dev and many other APIs.
Numerous frameworks say it works but then it doesn't really work.
Angular Might Be An Exception
Okay, I admit it, Angular actually works kind'a well for databinding.
But, don't get distracted, databinding really doesn't work that well.
Huge Learning Curve Anyways
And even if you can get it working there is often a huge learning curve to get it working properly.
I know someone who just went through this and took a week to get it right in a WPF XAML app. (a very small sample too).
So, just trying to start a bit of controversy here:
Quote: Databinding is just a marketing ploy and dev's dream, isn't it? It doesn't really work or save you time, does it?
Am I right or am i right?
May as well do it by hand than learn all that databinding nonsense,right? ay? right, then?
Are you with me on this Anti-DataBinding Movement?
Got It Working?
Or tell me where you've got databinding to work smoothly and seamlessly and with little effort.
|
|
|
|
|
WPF has a steep learning-curve, but once you've "got" it, it's fairly easy to work with. We use it in a WPF application for air-traffic controllers that bolts on to our airport management system, and any effort spent getting the data-binding to work is trivial compared to the application logic.
One of the first applications I worked on had to be implemented in Access 97. The customer didn't like the way that Access worked, so all data binding had to be done by hand. It ended up being incredibly slow, and painful to update, and the customer ended up ditching it before it was finished.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, very good explanation.
So, it is something you can do a one-time mapping of data to field on and then it works? Is that how you save time?
Because it feels like manual work every time anyways.
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
There's still a certain amount of manual work. But it's generally easier to fire a "property changed" event and let the data-binding framework take care of the details, than to write code to manually update a whole bunch of controls.
With a suitable base class, and a couple of attributes to declare inter-property dependencies, I end up with VM code that looks something like:
[DependsOnProperty(nameof(Foo))]
[AffectsOtherProperty(nameof(Bar))]
public string Fizz
{
get { return _fizz; }
set { SetProperty(ref _fizz, value); }
}
When I set Fizz, it raises a PropertyChanged event for both Fizz and Bar. When I set Foo, it raises events for Foo, Fizz and Bar.
So much nicer than:
public string Fizz
{
get { return _fizz; }
set
{
_fizz = value;
SomeControl.Value = value;
AnotherControl.Visible = value == "Baz";
YetAnotherControl.Checked = value == "Buzz";
...
}
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
+5 dev-points for the very nice and succinct example.
Does it get crazy when things get more complicated?
Are there places where you have had extended challenges that make the binding more difficult or where the binding fails?
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Does it get crazy when things get more complicated?
Of course.
But I don't think it would be any less crazy if I was trying to manually update the UI.
raddevus wrote: Are there places where you have had extended challenges that make the binding more difficult or where the binding fails?
Very rarely. But you can always fall back to writing code in the code-behind if absolutely necessary.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with data binding is that you think you can bind to any public property, but that's not true. Some are read-only of course, but many don't implement the event firing mechanism that says "I've changed". Doing that requires discipline on the part of the developer. At some point, the developer will say, "WTF, I have a hundred properties for this UI control, and I'm supposed to write a "PropertyChanged" setter call for each one?" 
What Microsoft should do is create a special PropertyWithChangeEvent syntactical sugar that creates the call for you.
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Doing that requires discipline on the part of the developer.
well, we know that is an unreasonable expectation. The best devs are lazy. I hope to be as good as Wally (Dilbert) some day.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: WTF, I have a hundred properties for this UI control, and I'm supposed to write a "PropertyChanged" setter call for each one
Your kidding right, I have not coded one of them in years, that is what snippets are for. Even for automatic properties there is a snippet.
OPC tab tab type name and I'm done! And yeah I will do that a 100 times if required but then I'm definitely annaly retentive about it.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I've found this to be true on Win Forms
I happen to like it on WinForms. 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I happen to like it on WinForms
Well, I'm trying to be controversial.
I will continue that here.
I've found it to be quite buggy. I think that problem where if you set the datasource and displayname and displayvalue in the wrong order then your form crashes.
Also, I do have some droplist controls that are bound to data that comes back from sql queries and they get filled, but it is not a very elegant solution. but I guess it works.
The last thing though is...it's winforms. WinForms are dead. These controls were last updated in Win95 (maybe WinNT 4) Stop developing them. 
I'm just joking around, but I'm kind of serious too.
Plus, I'm just saying that databinding hasn't been solved anywhere (except maybe Angular -- two-way binding is very smooth) very nicely.
I'm sure I've convinced you now that databinding is garbage and you'll join the movement, right?
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I've found it to be quite buggy. I think that problem where if you set the datasource and displayname and displayvalue in the wrong order then your form crashes.
I have that with ADO. Put the ExecuteNonQuery before the addition of the parameters, and it won't even crash.
raddevus wrote: The last thing though is...it's winforms. WinForms are dead. These controls were last updated in Win95 (maybe WinNT 4) Stop developing them.
It's not dead where I'm standing; WPF is not available on Linux, and there's no other rich GUI to equal it. The common controls have been updated in every version of Windows, which is why the common controls do not show the big fat bevel we had in Win3.0.
raddevus wrote: I'm just joking around, but I'm kind of serious too.
Lots of people came with expressions that X is dead and being seriously jokers.
raddevus wrote: I'm sure I've convinced you now that databinding is garbage and you'll join the movement, right?
Except in WinForms and Angular. Which are the only places that matter
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using data binding on web forms for a dozen years or so. Works perfectly fine for me.
So no, I won't join your movement. I wouldn't join any club that would accept me as a member.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
I upvoted you, because if you're talking about ASP.NET MVC you are right.
Model binding does work quite well.
If you're not talking about that, let me know and I will mark your message as spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Do I lose points if I'm talking about web forms, not MVC?
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
TNCaver wrote: Do I lose points if I'm talking about web forms, not MVC?
Yes, in that case, you lose major points.
Better just keep it quiet.
|
|
|
|
|
Buggy? Not at all. I'm sure it's a feature, whatever you may have seen.
Like a checkbox not being bound when you initialy have set Visible to false and not being able to bind the same flag in the data to visible to make the checkbox reappear for old datarows that have this checkmark set. I'm sure this behavior has some useful purpose, even if I can't really say which.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Works well enough in Xaml!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
/s3/tark/NH/201008/16/1356156.jpg){kind=link}