|
Understandable, I've started a few apps in WPF and gave up in desperation but I kept at it and am slowly learning...slowly! The hardest part for me has been the binding, it is so powerful but binding problems can sometimes be like chasing pointer problems.
|
|
|
|
|
I found building dynamic UI in Winforms was a lot easier than WPF; I built an industrial control UI interface that let the end user build their own screens for what they wanted to look at. Winforms let you use GDI+ for making custom graphics or controls, WPF took that away, and had you layer other shapes and items to a new control (annoying). WinUI gave us back the ability with Win2D NuGet package for DirectX drawing and was decent.
I worked with WPF for a couple years, and put out some big projects with it at my last job, but I just could never "like" it, after I left that place, I told myself never to work with it again.
I feel if WPF had been close to standard HTML5/CSS3 it would have been a home run. MS could have had their own "React native" type framework before React took off, and be able to bring in web UI designers into a familiar syntax.
|
|
|
|
|
For many applications, Windows Forms gets the job done. I see no reason to introduce the complications of XAML for these applications.
If the UI must be redesigned on alternate Tuesdays to pander to Marketing's latest craze, I can see the utility of XAML.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Same thought over here  , WinForms were added to .NET Core after solving some issues AFAIK, and ease of use and popularity are key factors, so it seems not wise to try to abandon this ...
|
|
|
|
|
I believe WinForms added to .Net Core to abandon .NET Framework.
|
|
|
|
|
XAML is as simple or as complex as you want. Its ability to "flow" content, can make ui building less painful / more enjoyable.
No one "thinks" in terms of Windows Forms designer code; it's mostly drag and drop.
It's easier to "visualize" in XAML (IMO); I never touch the designer.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Each to their own.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: t's easier to "visualize" in XAML (IMO); I never touch the designer.
Agreed. The WPF designer in Visual Studio has always been a bug-ridden mess, and the XAML it generates needs so much hand-tweaking it's not worth it. Expression Blend is utterly unusable with its gray-on-gray UI.
I code my XAML by hand.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I think WinForms is the bug-ridden mess. WinForms is a code generator. I cannot count the times the generator has screwed up on complex forms. I have had to go back a day and start over. With WPF I can fix things on the fly. Also since I can hand tweak things I find myself tackling much harder UI problems with great success.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it's GUI building abilities closely mimics of those of HTML/CSS, a simple human grade alignment requires "tricks". It offers scalability with screen size, but like auto-scaled 16*16 icons, blows up on small.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows Forms has always seemed to me to be a .NET wrapper around ye olde message pump and GDI.
Back in 2008 we started a major new product development. Up to that time our UI's were implemented in C++ and MFC. As I saw it, we had three options: C++/MFC, WinForms/C#, and WPF/C#. One of the pain points in C++/MFC was how laborious it was to make a UI adapt to changing conditions, screen resolutions, and window sizes. WinForms didn't add anything appreciably new. WPF on the other hand assumed from the start that a UI should be adaptive. It also made commonplace UI elements (graphics on a button, for example) trivially easy.
We went with WPF/C#, and have only had one hiccup in the 13 years we've been working on this product. The WPF document and page navigation features were both unreliable and unbelievable memory hogs. Page navigation had incredible memory leaks; dozens of MB for the simplest pages.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: We went with WPF/C#, and have only had one hiccup in the 13 years we've been working on this product. The WPF document and page navigation features were both unreliable and unbelievable memory hogs. Page navigation had incredible memory leaks; dozens of MB for the simplest pages.
The one WPF app I did (~4 years ago) the biggest problem we ran into was that complex pages took too long to initialize on slow systems[*], which we eventually worked around by writing a caching layer into the navigation so we only ever had to create them once; at the cost of higher memory consumption.
[*] This became an issue midway through the project. Initially the customer had given us a cheap/slow W10 tablet + dock to test with, but assured us the normal production hardware would be much better. 4 or 6 months in we got a copy of the main target hardware, and discovered the that kiosk they were using had the same 1.x ghz first generation in order Atom CPU, same paltry amount of ram, and similarly awful eMMC storage.  And the ~1s max load times we considered acceptable on my 15W laptop were 5-10s on the crappy atom; which was totally unacceptable. 😡
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
... a solution to problem that no one had in a overly complex way, it tried to be html for winforms, while it does show things in a beautiful way and on high dpi screens it just is not worth the effort, and is bloated.
Exception up = new Exception("Something is really wrong.");
throw up;
|
|
|
|
|
I started .NET development using WinForms.
When WPF came around, I tried it over and over again but was struggling to use it.
Then one day it clicked and I never went back to WinForms again.
I really like WPF. It gives me the option to apply the look and feel I want, without having to buy expensive frameworks.
Agreed, it takes a lot more time to set things up. Creating styles and themes, but when that is done, you re-use them for every project.
Visual Studio is also improving the WPF experience by adding more and more tooling.
For me, never WinForms again.
|
|
|
|
|
wow, where to start? Windows Forms with .Net is NOT as bad as everyone thinks. What's bad about Windows Forms is how people use it. What happens is someone with ZERO programming experience builds a business application on the platform and crams all their code in the code-behind class. They put the business logic, the persistence logic, and any logging and metrics all in that one class behind the form. They also only have ONE form for every part of the application. They don't make sub-forms or sub-controls, it's all one huge monolithic beast. They also don't apply any patterns to aid in decoupling any cross-cutting concerns, namely, using MVP to separate the form from any logic or using some message bus pattern for event handling across the app. Yeah, Windows Forms are horrible because the apps built on them are horribly done. If done properly, Windows Forms can be a quick and clean way to build internal tools for your business. See: Windows Forms Best Practices | Pluralsight[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I found VB4-6, MFC, and WinForms a lot easier to get to grips with as there's so much less 'hidden' stuff going on. WPF/XAML is really slick & powerful but for someone like me who is only a part-time GUI developer and spends a lot more time doing non-GUI development, it's hard to dabble in.
If I use it consistently for a while I start feeling more comfortable but then after a few months away I come back and feel clumsy again -- especially working on a codebase with contributions from a lot of people who are also nowhere near being WPF experts.
We also find skilled WPF programmers difficult to find & hire.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong: Developers need to earn, and ad supported software is a way to go - provided they don't get too "greedy" I'll either go with it, or pay for "no ads". If they get too greedy - and I've met games where you can play for 5 seconds, then have to watch two 30 second ads before the next "round" - then I'll delete them, simple as that.
No, I'm talking about the thirty second ads that get to 25 seconds or so, and open the play store automatically so you can just install the app. And the time you spend closing that and getting back to the original ad doesn't count - the timer "paused" while it opened and doesn't restart until you are back with the ad. so for a "30 second ad" they get extra exposure.
Does this encourage me to install the product? Not on your Nellie ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Is it just me, or are android adverts getting more annoying?
Not only Android adverts... The industry as a whole has got a bit too far with adverts.
OriginalGriff wrote: Don't get me wrong: Developers need to earn, and ad supported software is a way to go - provided they don't get too "greedy" I'll either go with it, or pay for "no ads". If they get too greedy - and I've met games where you can play for 5 seconds, then have to watch two 30 second ads before the next "round" - then I'll delete them, simple as that.
Yeah.
But the problem is partially (at least 50%) caused by the majority of the users too. Before the producers (mostly) had to convince you with the quality of their product and you bought it. Now the main revenue come with built-in publicity or data slurping / shopping it to third parties, not with the sells themselves.
And as long as the 90% of the population continue consuming this system, it won't change (at least not in the good direction).
As it has been said a lot of times... if something is free, you are the product.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
And a lot of that is because the product is generally so poor that if you did "try before you buy" they won't sell any ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh so true. It's the same thing with radio adverts. They have begun repeating the phone numbers not twice, but three or four times. It's as if they think they can force you to call.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: radio adverts
That's still a thing?
Seriously, I never tune in, but when I'm riding in a car with someone who listens to commercial radio - it horrifying. Is there not any cookie-cutter radio station anymore, or something NOT owned by iheartradio?
It's all about follow us, like us, subscribe...yeah, to get even more of that crap - why would I want to put myself through any of that?
|
|
|
|
|
I warmly recommend radioparadise dot com
100% ad free (voluntary listener supported) and a pretty awesome music mix.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I never said I was looking for ad-free alternatives. I was lamenting the state of commercial radio - the kind I'm stuck listening to when I'm sitting as a passenger in someone else's car.
|
|
|
|
|
Like you, I don't mind advertising-supported development. I do appreciate the option to purchase an ad-free version, although I don't like the subscription model to maintain "ad-free".
I tried a music player once on my phone that was really nice. Clean layout, handled all of my music intelligently. The ads were a little intrusive, so I spent the $19.95 to get it ad-free. At the time, this was a steep price for that sort of thing, but the program itself was pretty good.
Until the ad-free 'trial' ran out after 90 days. At that point, if I wanted to maintain ad-free use of the app, they wanted to charge me around $10 a month. For a ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) ing music player.
No thank you, uninstall, and brief expletive-laden message to the developer that if I ever saw another charge on my credit card from them they'd be reported to law enforcement for fraud. Miserable deceptive s.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
The ad supported model is pretty good, when it's used right: to let us try before we buy while giving some reward to the developer while we make up our minds f it's worth the money...
There are good ones: for example OurGroceries - the ads weren't intrusive, but it is damn good. It's a shopping list - but it's server based, so if Herself notices the milk is low, she can add it to the list, and it appears on my phone, even if I'm in the supermarket at the time. And the tech support is "direct to the developer" who is really helpful. I bought it twice - once on my account, once on Herself's because it's worth it to me.
But ... there are a lot of total ripoffs out there, and it's hard to spot which is which sometimes.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
