|
Good morning swami
how do you expect a .net developed application to run where there is no .net installed ?
Secondly as a .net programmer this should always be in your mind. Before you start coding you must have decided what is a target framework for your application. e.g
Visual Studio 2003 = .net 1.1
Visual Studio 2005 = .net 2.0
Visual Studio 2008 = .net 3.5
You must install these frameworks depending to your target framework. lastly please please please buy a book and read , you cant learn everything on the internet. the reason i say this is because in every book this is a basic lesson an author gives to his reader and its very easy to understand.
Vuyiswa Maseko,
Few companies that installed computers to reduce the employment of clerks have realized their expectations.... They now need more and more expensive clerks even though they call them "Developers" or "Programmers."
C#/VB.NET/ASP.NET/SQL7/2000/2005/2008
http://www.vuyiswamaseko.somee.com
vuyiswa@its.co.za
http://www.itsabacus.co.za/itsabacus/
|
|
|
|
|
you have not understood my quote, plz don't give answer
|
|
|
|
|
That is quite rude of you - he gave a prefectly sensible answer.
However, the info you want is here: install .net with application[^]
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
This message is made of fully recyclable Zeros and Ones
|
|
|
|
|
I normally hate your behavior , not you. i will pray for you that you change.
Vuyiswa Maseko,
Few companies that installed computers to reduce the employment of clerks have realized their expectations.... They now need more and more expensive clerks even though they call them "Developers" or "Programmers."
C#/VB.NET/ASP.NET/SQL7/2000/2005/2008
http://www.vuyiswamaseko.somee.com
vuyiswa@its.co.za
http://www.itsabacus.co.za/itsabacus/
|
|
|
|
|
After slacking on the C# front for a year or two, I've decided to have another look. Previously I used C# for the web, but now I'm looking into creating desktop apps. And I'd like to use one of the latest technologies (to save me having to learn another one in a year's time...). I'd also particularly like to target Windows 7 - but also be able to make some apps for XP. My question is:
Which technology do you think is best to use for creating my desktop apps and why? Windows Presentation Foundation? Windows Forms? Other? I really don't have a clue, so I'm hoping for a nudge in the right direction! 
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
There is one thing i will say to you. WPF is the Next Generation.
Vuyiswa Maseko,
Few companies that installed computers to reduce the employment of clerks have realized their expectations.... They now need more and more expensive clerks even though they call them "Developers" or "Programmers."
C#/VB.NET/ASP.NET/SQL7/2000/2005/2008
http://www.vuyiswamaseko.somee.com
vuyiswa@its.co.za
http://www.itsabacus.co.za/itsabacus/
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Firth wrote: Which technology do you think is best to use for creating my desktop apps and why? Windows Presentation Foundation? Windows Forms? Other?
That's a tricky question, and not one that's easy to answer. First of all, let's address a misconception - WinForms aren't going to go away anytime soon, so learning them isn't going to be wasted effort. You'll still be able to develop desktop applications in them for a long time to come.
Now, saying that, I'd choose WPF over WinForms for a number of reasons.
1. While WinForms isn't going away, it's not going to be actively improved by MS, so you're stuck with what you get.
2. WPF makes it easier to create data bound applications. Rather than having to write lots of string myValue = txtName.Text; and txtName.Text = dr[dr.GetOrdinal("MyValue")].ToString(); code, you can use two way databinding in WPF to good effect.
3. It's easy to change the look and feel of WPF applications.
4. If you want to move over to Silverlight, it's based on WPF so the transition is a lot easier.
5. Microsoft is actively targetting improving WPF, and is starting to use it in its own applications.
6. The infrastructure underlying WPF is a whole lot more powerful.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Rated 5 - Good Answer! Thanks.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: 1. While WinForms isn't going away, it's not going to be actively improved by MS
That's quite a big one I think. Whilst I'm sure there are a range of controls, code and tutorials available - I am looking at future expandability. So WPF looks like the way to go. Plus I've strong skills in web design (PHP,HTML,CSS,etc), so what I've seen of XAML is looking quite useful for GUIs and I think it'll be quite familiar.
I think WPF is the way to go for me...
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Firth wrote: Plus I've strong skills in web design (PHP,HTML,CSS,etc), so what I've seen of XAML is looking quite useful for GUIs and I think it'll be quite familiar.
That's why I wrote this[^] article. If you're a web developer, WPF is a lot easier to get your head round.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Good article too. I used the beta/alpha version of MS blend and web and thought they were great. But they were too buggy at the time to keep learning on - maybe I should take your advice and invest.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you should try both atleast for practice level.
than you are in better position to decide your self
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'd do winforms, because
1) the drag 'n drop editor does not suck
2) existing code will fit it better because everyone is used to it
3) text rendering is not blurry and headache-inducing
4) you're not writing an advert so why does it have to look flashy?
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: 1) the drag 'n drop editor does not suck
Do you mean the wysiwyg editor for creating the actual forms?
|
|
|
|
|
He does - the editor isn't brilliant - that's why a lot of people developing in WPF also use Blend. It doesn't bother me though, as I prefer to use the code editor when creating WPF forms pretty. The blurry text issue is a problem in the current version of WPF, but the next version uses a significantly enhanced version of the font renderer, and it's a lot clearer.
I forgot to mention - WPF uses DirectX natively, whereas WinForms uses GDI+ natively. This means that you can do things like 3D in applications that would be hard (if not damn near impossible) to do in WinForms.
"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: I forgot to mention - WPF uses DirectX natively, whereas WinForms uses GDI+ natively. This means that you can do things like 3D in applications that would be hard (if not damn near impossible) to do in WinForms.
That's another reason to use WPF. Although I'm not looking at a 3D app right now - it is something I want to look at in the future. 
|
|
|
|
|
You could always host a DirectX viewport in your winforms app, you just need an empty panel for it.
That's the only good place for 3D that I can think of - if you just use it randomly for buttons or something like that it would just look flashy and "like an ad"
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have to use XAML for GUI's - or will a WPF form use defaults if no GUI is coded?
Think I've got a good few hours of tutorial hunting ahead of me....
|
|
|
|
|
You can write your GUIs in straightforward C# if you want - there's no rule that says it has to be written in XAML. Reading your question, I suspect what you're asking is do you have to restyle the controls or does WPF apply defaults if you haven't. If this is the case, WPF provides a default look and feel that you can change as much or as little as you like.
Marc Firth wrote: Think I've got a good few hours of tutorial hunting ahead of me....
OK - you need to buy WPF Unleashed [^]by Adam Nathan and Pro WPF[^] by Matt MacDonald.
On top of that, you can read up on this stuff in articles and blogs by my fellow WPF Disciples like Sacha Barber, Karl Shifflett, Josh Smith and Marlon Grech.
"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: OK - you need to buy WPF Unleashed [^]by Adam Nathan and Pro WPF[^] by Matt MacDonald.
Sold. 
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Karl Shifflett,
Not related to Chris Shifflett [^] is he? (Chris is probably the best PHP security expert I know of)
I had a quick look at your blog, will definately revisit.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: OK - you need to buy WPF Unleashed [^]by Adam Nathan and Pro WPF[^] by Matt MacDonald.
The books have arrived. Excellent Recommendations. Makes it all look easy! Especially Pro WCF. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all you C# and Excel programming people,
some days ago I discovered something that I have to tell...
I wrote a programm writing/reading to and from an MSSQL-db to and from Excel-sheets.
In one of my Excel-sheets I have to read the column "A" in order to get the right row to insert some values.
inside a ...
for(int row=0;...){ // I do like...
Excel.Range range = (Excel.Range)mySheet.Cells[row, "A"];
string val = range.Text.ToString();
...
}
The problem is: when one of the rows is hidden I do not get the row and for that reason I don't get a value.
When the whole column "A" is just not as wide as it has to be you can only see "####" and this is exactly what I get, what my string val looks like.
So the data in the Excel sheet is some number, but what I get is only what I see.
IF someone knows how to get rid of such a problem, I'd like to know.
Else I just wanted to mention.
Greets
Harry
no plan,
no signature
|
|
|
|
|
Harry666 wrote: string val = range.Text.ToString();
have you tried without the ToString() method?
When it is called Text, I suspect it already is a string...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get.
Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, calling it Text doesn't make its type to string. It's just an object.
So this would simply not compile:
string val = range.Text;
Instead of using .ToString()
perhaps I could cast like this...
string val = (string)range.Text;
But there is also .Value (clearly spoken I've got no .Value but .Value2)
...let's try
no plan,
no signature
|
|
|
|
|
You must use .Value, not .Text, in order to obtain the content of the cell.
2+2=5 for very large amounts of 2
(always loved that one hehe!)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
I already thought and was about to try this, but I almost forgot it. 
Some points to mention:
My Excel.Range doesn't have a .Value but there is .Value2
... they probably do almost the same.
If there is no value in the cell (the range), Value2 equals null. So I have to test it...
if (range.Value2 == null)
val = "";
else
val = range.Value2.ToString();
Using range.Text.ToString()
I do not have to test against null, I just get an empty string.
Greets
Harry
no plan,
no signature
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
