|
That's a completely useless f*ckin' answer.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I should have used the joke icon..
here another useful answer - The reasons why you should use silverlight over WPF is one that only your boss and I know. We cannot share the buisness secret with a commoner.
[A Serious Answer]:
if you google Silverlight vs WPF you get 2.5 Million result!
This is from my bookmark:
BLOG[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Saoud wrote: [A Serious Answer]
Quoted from that blog;
"The maddening answer is (of course): it depends!"
The link you pasted says it depends, whereas you say it "rocks". Now which of the two do you want?
I are troll 
|
|
|
|
|
i was making a joke damn it
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: pros/cons
should'nt that be sucks/blows ?
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
|
|
|
|
|
Silverlight is WPF web 3.0ified. 
Afaik the only other major change is that you've got the normal web app based lack of local storage/pc access.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.
-- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
|
|
|
|
|
I was playing with Silverlight / WPF early on, and the best way I can describe it is that Silverlight is, essentially, a subset of WPF. Silverlight is stripped down to accomodate the stuff you can do in a web browser (don't get me started) versus what you can do in a client app ala WPF.
So, what your boss is asking you to do is reduce by a significant percentage the capabilities of the development platform you're using, for the benefit of being able to run it in a web browser. If you're doing stuff on the wide web, perhaps there's a case for that. If it's for internal company use only, then it's an unproductive decision that offers no benefits other than being able to say that you're trendy.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: other than being able to say that you're trendy.
Which sometimes may be a deal maker.
Trust me, an "Enterprise Application" these days is naturally expected to have a web based front-end. IT departments love web based applications over desktop applications as it usually means a lot of time saved to them in support and deployment.
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote: IT departments love web based applications over desktop applications as it usually means a lot of time saved to them in support and deployment.
That's the promise. Sadly, the reality often falls far short and there's just as much pain in supporting said application, having followed a vastly increased development time as you spend so much time working round web app limitations.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Sadly, the reality often falls far short and there's just as much pain in supporting said application, having followed a vastly increased development time as you spend so much time working round web app limitations.
Same thing happens in desktop apps. Count the calls to DoEvents() in a legacy VB app, and you'll get a feel for how much time the author spent fighting, rather than working with the threaded, event-driven model of Windows desktop apps...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Count the calls to DoEvents() in a legacy VB app
No I won't. 
Seriously though, I agree with Pete, browser development is seriously limited, it is supposed to be. That is not at all comparable to the limitations of the Programmer using the tools.
The invention of the Web and Browsers was never intended to be used as a replacement for client/server desktop applications. The pains we are currently going through is no more than squeezing a balloon where we transfer the problems associated with installing/maintaining local software to a whole new set of problems that are generated using browser development. The inherent limitations of HTTP/HTML have no comparable limitations in desktop development and likely tip the scale when comparing the two approaches.
There are certainly perfectly good scenarios demanding browser based applications. However the current trend completely ignores the choice of desktop versus browser even in situations where the criteria clearly suggests desktop would be a better fit. I am fairly confident that history will view this as a an all to common failure.
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: The inherent limitations of HTTP/HTML have no comparable limitations in desktop development and likely tip the scale when comparing the two approaches.
Sure they do. Or rather, they can - don't think of it as HTTP+HTML vs. C++ native app running as root/admin, think of it as a VB app running as a limited user: you've accepted certain limitations in exchange for a framework that lets you do certain things more easily / provides extra security for your users / etc. Folks did some rather complex apps with VB, but still the framework was never designed for multithreading, access to system APIs, etc. In both cases, as soon as you step outside of what was easy, what was envisioned by the designers (data-entry forms / static text pages...), things got weird and difficult.
led mike wrote: There are certainly perfectly good scenarios demanding browser based applications. However the current trend completely ignores the choice of desktop versus browser even in situations where the criteria clearly suggests desktop would be a better fit.
IMHO, the primary difference with the Web stuff is that we're not in control. After decades of writing apps that - given the right choice of language and library - could pretty much treat the user's system as their own private playground, we're back to writing server software that has only very limited control over the terminals it must use for interacting with users. You really can't publish system requirements for a web page if you want it to have a broad audience; for an internal app, you might be able to mandate a certain browser version and perhaps also screen size and color depth, but ultimately the user still has final say over more factors than you do, and if you don't accept that then both of you will suffer for it.
And... I love it. Because the truth of the matter is, for every desktop app that understood the responsibility that came with the power to control everything, there were scores of apps that saw it as a invitation to abuse that power, to reach in and screw with my system in rude ways, place arbitrary restrictions on how i could use the app itself, or fail to play nicely with other apps. It's forced developers to learn to write scalable software, after decades of "threads are hard, let's call DoEvents" attitudes. And it's put the users back in control of their own data and their own hardware.
led mike wrote: I am fairly confident that history will view this as a an all to common failure.
History is notoriously cyclical. Plenty of perfectly good mainframe apps ported to the desktop without improving performance, data-entry efficiency, or reliability (although there was plenty of opportunity to achieve all three...) just because desktop apps were Teh New Hotness. Plenty of perfectly good text apps turned into GUIs for the same reason. And now, we're seeing web apps replacing perfectly good desktop apps... including some of the same sorts of applications originally written for now-ancient terminals.
Pointless re-writes and counter-productive redesigns didn't start with The Web, and certainly won't end with it... I'm willing to bet that right now there are teams of programmers re-writing perfectly good web apps in WPF, Silverlight or Air. C'est la vie...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: there were scores of apps that saw it as a invitation to abuse that power, to reach in and screw with my system in rude ways
Agreed. I guess I am looking at it from a developer perspective of being forced to deal with all the limitations of a browser based scenario because of management decision based on nothing. Then after all that extra work they change the requirements to included writing files to the client machine and want the application to run in offline mode, yes from the browser. Keep in mind that there is almost zero level of real server based activity (like a database) in this application.
It's just a giant Dilbert environment that I work in. No amount of stories can help someone realize the level of stupidity that we deal with on a daily basis. You absolutely have to be here to even begin to grasp it.
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: It's just a giant Dilbert environment that I work in. No amount of stories can help someone realize the level of stupidity that we deal with on a daily basis. You absolutely have to be here to even begin to grasp it.
![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: you spend so much time working round web app limitations.
What limitations? Our LOB web app doesn't have any, i.e. we don't need any local file access etc. The only potential limitation is that it requires JavaScript, covered by our requirement of FF with JS enabled.
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you.
- John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the joy of things like Session, round-trips, page navigation issues and the likes.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
We use one page in an IFrame that is loaded for the entire session. JavaScript shows and hides various forms that are all pure JS. Within about a month there will be no more aspx or html pages except for that main one.
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you.
- John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
That's cool, but how quickly would this have been developed as a desktop app?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
That's a tough one. If we had just gone WinForms, maybe half the time, but to keep our Mac clients as well, maybe twice the time. When the decision was made to go web, Mono was till quite lacking, and non of the other so-called cross platform libraries came close.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: ollowed a vastly increased development time
I don't agree with it necessarily.
My experience in terms of rapidity of development has been:
VB6 / Winforms > ASP.NET > ASP.NET with jQuery/ExtJS > MFC > WPF > SilverLight.
If I want to develop something really quick and dirty and short lived form/grid based LOB app, I invariably choose winforms.
However, I have found that in a complex - long lived project the choice of technology itself plays very less part in the development time. Because each technology comes with its own set of problems.
|
|
|
|
|
And web applications are truly independent of OS on the clients.
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you.
- John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
It's just a shame that they aren't browser independent.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Ours is getting damn close through extJS.
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you.
- John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, these days there is no excuse of writing browser dependent code. The Javascript libraries are extremely powerful and encapsulate lot of complexities away.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: then it's an unproductive decision that offers no benefits other than being able to say that you're trendy.
Which can then be wrapped as as saying it's "Enterprise" ready, and the decision is practically a given!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
