|
Nor that of the articles that do get approved.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Nor that of the articles that do get approved.
However I like to think that is something we can work on...
BTW: Primes article still in progress 
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Primes article still in progress
I still say it's a bad idea, but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember, however:
- there are several on CP already;
- mine will focus on performance, and is growing very long already, so I don't expect a lazy
audience to be interested.
|
|
|
|
|
We need a www.crapproject.com where all the bad articles can go.
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
I am just coming home from my New Years Party (it's 4:30 am here) and would like to wish everyone here a great year 2009 full of success and happiness!!
Is it just me that feels coming to CP after a party is kind of weird? 
|
|
|
|
|
No, but coming home after a party and still being able to spell 'weird' is weird!!
Happy NY!
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
CP article: SmartPager - a Flickr-style pager control with go-to-page popup layer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you.
Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5?
And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all?
Please shed some light on this issue,
Regards,
PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Of all new features in 3.5, I can say one is well worth the upgrade: LINQ.
Also there are things like partial methods, var, and other C# things that I use quite often.
The bad thing is the framework downlaod is bigger. If you are writing server apps (ASP.NET), then there's nothing against using 3.5. If you are writing a client application (WinForms/WPF), you'll need your users to isntall the FX 3.5 (it doesn't come with Vista or through Windows Update AFAIK).
Happy new year!!
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree - if you upgrade for one feature it's gotta be LINQ.
You find yourself using it all the time (not just for database or XML)
'Howard
|
|
|
|
|
2.0 to 3.5 you cannot justify the change to a beancounter, you never can, for them an abacus is an adequate tool and the cost is about right, miserable sods  .
I think the improved intellisense and Linq are about the only things I am using.
In my opinion WPF is not valid for data centric apps and I will be sticking with winforms for a couple of years yet. I have the feeling it will mature dramatically over that period and the learning curve will flatten somewhat.
Workflow Services (WWF & WCF combined) is a peice of crap, this is an MS ploy to sell more product, specifically Sharepoint. There are limited real world examples available and you need so many services, databases, hosting services and UI components just to get a form out it is quite painfull. And I hate the drag and drop designer what a POS.
I have no opinion on Web stuff as I am 90% winform based.
Luckily we have MSDN so the cost of VS is factored in and there is no real cost for us to move until we get into WPF. 2008 & 2005 reside happily on the same development box so it has been a very easy, low cost transition for us.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I can see a use for WCF (if they make it easier on the programmer), but WWF is nothing more than pandering to non-programmers by allowing them to assemble custom-ordered "activities" (written by *real* programmers) without having to write any code. I still don't see a need for WPF (in my current situation, anyway).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: WWF is nothing more than pandering to non-programmers by allowing them to assemble custom-ordered "activities" (written by *real* programmers) without having to write any code
I agree that the canned workflows are a POS but I write custom web parts and workflows in VS2008 and that is where I get creative with what can be accomplished.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to disagree here. WCF is incredibly useful if you're doing any kind of app-to-app communication other than consuming your own web services. Interoperability, non-http chatter, and the control you get over the wire all are pretty nice. We have a web service that has to be consumed by a Java client with very specific requirements that was much easier to do with WCF than ASMX. Also, WCF serialization is much better than the serialization done by ASMX in my opinion.
We have a production app using WF right now. I'd be a liar if I said it was the greatest tool in the world, but when dealing with state machines and a persistent process where multiple users have to interact with the message, it does have its uses and I think ultimately we chose the right technology (even if we didn't architect it too well initially). WF's big hurdles are the learning curve, the extremely poor performance of the designer, and the fact that it's easy to screw things up. It's not the best API in the world, which is why I think MS is almost starting over with 4.0. But I wouldn't call it crap either.
Like others have said though, LINQ is huge. Even if you're not doing anything other than LINQ to Objects (which is all we've been able to implement thus far) it's a huge productivity boost once you learn it. I'd still stay away from the data side until MS figures out what it's doing with EF and what future LINQ to SQL has, but LINQ to Objects and LINQ to XML are both fantastic tools.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you understand what a workflow is. Workflow is a very standard part of large enterprise applications where the flexability of a workflow system, such as WF, BizTalk, etc. is essential to developing processes that can adapt to changing business needs in the appropriate timeframes. WF most definitely does not pander to "fake" programmers, on the contrary, it is a system that targets the highly complex, stateful, and usually long-running "workflows" of large organizations. Its far more than just "visual programming", as it is designed to allow operations staff, who tend NOT to be programmers at all, make the necessary adjustments to business processes on a continuous basis.
I suggest you educate yourself more before voicing such strong opinions about subjects you don't know much about.
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: Workflow Services (WWF & WCF combined) is a peice of crap, this is an MS ploy to sell more product, specifically Sharepoint.
SharePoint rocks!
If you used SahrePoint 2003 you probably think SahrePoint is a POS but SharePoint 2007 is a vast improvement and is a very workable product. There are still some improvements that would be nice, and I am sure they will eventually be incorporated, but all in all SharePoint 2007 (more specifically MOSS 2007) is a viable collaboration solution, especially if you also use Office 2007.
I would have to agree that the canned workflows are a POS but I write custom web parts and workflows and that is where I get very creative.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I don't have an issue with Sharepoint, my problem is that I work for a large organisation and there is at least 3 years of inertia for anything on the Enterprise level and that has been excersabated by the current financial sitution so I can't get to play with the new toys. The nly reason we can move to 2008 stuff is if it is for the department only.
I do dislike the way MS is tightly integrating all their products. SQL BI for instance requires both office 2007 and sharepoint, sharepoint requires exchange server and the list goes on. We had an estimate for the upgrade and it was in the millions so it brick walled it.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: sharepoint requires exchange server
Not in my experience. I have 2 SharePoint Servers (Win2003 Server [IIS Server], SQL Server 2005, MOSS 2007) running and have worked on 1 other system that didn't have Exchange Server or Office 2007 running. There may be some features that require Exchange Server but you can have a robust SharePoint installation without it.
The system (MOSS 2007) that used Office 2003 worked just fine. Although we couldn't do some of the collaboration you could in Office 2007 we certainly were able to implement a lot of functionality and the collaboration functionality took place in SharePoint instead of being able to implement it in either SharePoint or Office 2007.
Beware of sales people, they will try to sell you as much as they can.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I do dislike the way MS is tightly integrating all their products.
I don't dislike that because it gives you a lot of functionality. What I do dislike is how M$ blocks other vendors from tight integration with their products.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi:
I think you don´t have any idea what are you talking about. If you use WCF once, you will never, never leve that.
La entrada es gratis, la salida vemos....
|
|
|
|
|
If you read the post, I was not negative towards WCF, the workflow services (WWF + WCF) are a dog. I like WCF, although I have limited exposure to it.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you have a major project underway that is at a "point-of-no-return" in terms of progress, you should start using .Net 3.5. The beauty of VS2008 (yes, there's at least ONE good thing about VS2008) is that you can target .Net 2.0 OR 3.5. That means you can at least start using the newest IDE, even if you're stuck on a .Net 2.0 project.
All new development should use .Net 3.5.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: That means you can at least start using the newest IDE, even if you're stuck on a .Net 2.0 project.
If you are using an automated build system, be sure your build servers are using the updated MSBuild and/or other compilers.
|
|
|
|
|
Silverlight?...if you're doing anything webby, it'd be good to start getting a handle on it.
|
|
|
|
|
I write mostly Windows Services and console programs with C#, with a few WinForms applications thrown in.
(I'd like to do some WebServices, but I can't get a handle on it. Web development is black magic.)
The only part of .net 3.5 I use is System.Collections.Generic.Hashset; it doesn't have all the features I'd like (e.g. operators), but it provides what I need in most situations.
I occasionally write an Extension Method (in fact I wrote one yesterday), just as a toy; several of the more experienced developers here and elsewhere [weasel words] agree that Extension Methods are generally a bad idea. And I don't like how they were implemented in C#.
I have no use for Linq or any of that other stuff.
I use VS 2008 SP1 when I need to do something in WinForms, otherwise I use command line tools... just to prove a point. 
I haven't experienced the problems others have reported with VS (in any version), but SP1 added a "feature" I really detest (though others seem to like it) -- it compiles in the background as you type and underlines semantic errors; it's not as bad as when VBA pops up a message when I edit an Excel macro, but it's darn close and I don't want to waste the clock cycles (both hardware and wetware), I prefer the old behaviour, so I disabled Tools|Options|Text Editor|C#|Advanced|Show live semantic errors, which helps.
I've never had to pay for VS (I get it via my employer's MSDN and at launch events) so I can't speak about pricing.
Otherwise I'd use the Express edition, I see no reason to buy a cow when I can get the milk for free.
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky# wrote: So why use 3.5 at all?
Because Microsoft sez so. You got a problem with that? 
Seriously, if you don't see the use in it, if no one on your team can or wants to convince you that it's worthwhile, then what difference does it make what the rest of us think? Use what you need to get your job done, don't worry so much about chasing trends (obviously, writing a new app in VB6 is bad since the tool and libraries are unsupported, but .NET 2.0 should be around for a while... at very least, as a part of .NET 3.5).
---- You're right.
These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets .
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
