Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[David Gardiner]

A quick check of https://github.com/aurelia/framework/commits/master shows
that it is very much alive and well and Rob is still active there.

Also, interesting to note that Aurelia does work with ASP.NET Core. True,
it isn't currently one of the 'out of the box' templates like Angular or
React but it is supported via the Microsoft.AspNetCore.SpaTemplates package.


eg.

dotnet new --install "Microsoft.AspNetCore.SpaTemplates::*"

(See https://github.com/EisenbergEffect/aspnetcore-aurelia-build-2017 for
more info).

I've been watching it for ages (having liked some of Rob's previous efforts
in Caliburn Micro when I was doing Windows Phone apps) and just recently
have had a chance to kick the tyres building a simple 'build status
dashboard'. I like what I see and it was very easy to get up and running.

David


On 24 August 2017 at 19:37, Tony Wright  wrote:
>
> I agree with you Corneliu the angular 2 syntax makes you go "what the
hell were they thinking!" especially given that angular 1 was far easier,
far more intuitive to use. But you do get used to it.

> Perhaps Rob Eisenberg is doing something awesome for Microsoft and we'll
> see some magic there.
>
> If Aurelia had the backing of Microsoft I'm sure it would be a different
> story, as that's the kind of argument they want to hear in the enterprise
> (angular backed by google, react backed by Facebook, Aurelia backed
> by...Rob Eisenberg. Hmm. One person? Risky, they say.).
>
> There is nothing inherently wrong with Aurelia, it just doesn't have the
> traction, and traction is most of the game in the enterprise. And react and
> Vue seem to get all the startup work. But if productivity is the key it is
> a legitimate choice of you don't have a panel of enterprise architects to
> convince.
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Aug 2017 7:48 PM, "Corneliu I. Tusnea" 
> wrote:
>
> I'm one of the lovers of Aurelia (and I know Wal also on this list uses
> Aurelia).
>
> For me Aurelia is has one of the best designs possible. Clean and easy to
> use. Everything is simply obvious.
> With Aurelia I never had to think "how do you do this or that". It's all
> simple and natural.
> DI is beautiful, binding is obvious, templates are easy to read and the
> html extensions like `repeat.for`,  `.bind` or `.call' are easy to remember
> and use.
> When I look at Angular2 my eyes hurt: *[hidden]* , **ngFor, #field.* I
> mean, seriously, Angular 2 has an abuse of special characters.
>
> With Aurelia, once you learn to build custom attributes and custom
> elements you exponentially grow productivity.
>
> That's my choice :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
>
>> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
>> and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
>> close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
>> a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
>> like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic
>> wobbling Turboencabulator
>>  propped up by a
>> half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If the time comes
>> when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to make a living ,
>> then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin.
>>
>> Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of
>> extra-terrestrial life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean
>> dictatorship and the extinction of JavaScript.
>>
>> *GK*
>>
>> On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter  wrote:
>>
>>> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
>>> forced to look at this stuff.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>>>
 After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
 application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
 from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
 will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
 on any of the frameworks.

 Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
 angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
 reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
 and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
 available for those apps.

 When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs
 at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked
 me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get
 on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where
 the jobs were and viola, the rest is history.



 On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter" 

RE: Visual Studio 2017 and WWF

[David Kean]

System.Workflow was originally released in .NET 3.0/Vista timeframe (2006) – 
but “RTM” designer support was added in VS 2008. It’s unfortunate that we need 
to deprecate features – but very little usage and non-trivial cost to move it 
to VS 2017 (due to the rewritten setup), the decision was made to remove it.

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:25 AM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: Visual Studio 2017 and WWF

I think I found the answer here:

Thank you for your feedback! The .NET 3.5 Workflow project type is no longer 
supported in VS2017. This is by design as WF from .NET 3.5 (System.Workflow) 
has been deprecated since 2012. While you will not be able to create new 
projects, it is still possible to open old projects if you install Office 
Developer Tools. But only SharePoint 2010 workflows are still supported.

I forgot that there was some huge WWF update years ago and all the plumbing and 
libraries changed. The project I'm trying to open is the old style that 
references System.Workflow. As a test I created a new stub WWF project and I 
see it references System.Activities.

So it looks like the project which opened in VS2015 two weeks ago is no longer 
supported by VS2017 ... another subtle trap for the complacent or trusting. The 
comment above hints that I might be able to open it if certain conditions are 
met, but I'm not confident of the outcome and waste of time.

GK

On 22 August 2017 at 08:51, Greg Keogh 
> wrote:
After upgrading to Visual Studio 2017 I can't open any Windows Workflow 
projects (Incompatible, The application is not installed).

Various advice from searches suggests to check WWF in the Individual Components 
list (seems obvious), but it weirdly makes no difference. Others suggest you 
need SharePoint support, others suggest Framework 3.5 is needed. It all makes 
no difference.

There must be some other dependent piece of dark matter that I can't find. Any 
ideas anyone?

Greg K

Re: Visual Studio 2017 and WWF

[DotNet Dude]

Lol actually if anyone of our clients want Webforms work out of us we
always say only if we are replacing it, we don't do enhancements.

On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Stephen Price 
wrote:

> On a completely unrelated note, I got a call from a recruiter who's found
> me roles in the past (there's a couple of good ones - recruiters, that is)
> for a Silverlight role.
> I laughed and said, really? Someone is looking for a Silverlight
> developer?!
> He replied yes. To remove it.
>
> I just about lost it, crying with laughter. Might be worth leaving
> Silverlight on your Linked in profile (or change it to "removal of")
>
> On 24 Aug. 2017 3:29 pm, Greg Keogh  > wrote:
>
> I think I found the answer here:
>
> *Thank you for your feedback! The .NET 3.5 Workflow project type is no
> longer supported in VS2017. This is by design as WF from .NET 3.5
> (System.Workflow) has been deprecated since 2012. While you will not be
> able to create new projects, it is still possible to open old projects if
> you install Office Developer Tools. But only SharePoint 2010 workflows are
> still supported.*
>
> I forgot that there was some huge WWF update years ago and all the
> plumbing and libraries changed. The project I'm trying to open is the old
> style that references System.Workflow. As a test I created a new stub WWF
> project and I see it references System.Activities.
>
> So it looks like the project which opened in VS2015 two weeks ago is no
> longer supported by VS2017 ... another subtle trap for the complacent or
> trusting. The comment above hints that I *might* be able to open it if
> certain conditions are met, but I'm not confident of the outcome and waste
> of time.
>
> *GK*
>
> On 22 August 2017 at 08:51, Greg Keogh  > wrote:
>
> After upgrading to Visual Studio 2017 I can't open any Windows Workflow
> projects (Incompatible, The application is not installed).
>
> Various advice from searches suggests to check WWF in the Individual
> Components list (seems obvious), but it weirdly makes no difference. Others
> suggest you need SharePoint support, others suggest Framework 3.5 is
> needed. It all makes no difference.
>
> There must be some other dependent piece of dark matter that I can't find.
> Any ideas anyone?
>
> *Greg K*
>
>
>
>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tony Wright]

I agree with you Corneliu the angular 2 syntax makes you go "what the hell
were they thinking!" especially given that angular 1 was far easier, far
more intuitive to use. But you do get used to it.

Perhaps Rob Eisenberg is doing something awesome for Microsoft and we'll
see some magic there.

If Aurelia had the backing of Microsoft I'm sure it would be a different
story, as that's the kind of argument they want to hear in the enterprise
(angular backed by google, react backed by Facebook, Aurelia backed
by...Rob Eisenberg. Hmm. One person? Risky, they say.).

There is nothing inherently wrong with Aurelia, it just doesn't have the
traction, and traction is most of the game in the enterprise. And react and
Vue seem to get all the startup work. But if productivity is the key it is
a legitimate choice of you don't have a panel of enterprise architects to
convince.




On 24 Aug 2017 7:48 PM, "Corneliu I. Tusnea"  wrote:

I'm one of the lovers of Aurelia (and I know Wal also on this list uses
Aurelia).

For me Aurelia is has one of the best designs possible. Clean and easy to
use. Everything is simply obvious.
With Aurelia I never had to think "how do you do this or that". It's all
simple and natural.
DI is beautiful, binding is obvious, templates are easy to read and the
html extensions like `repeat.for`,  `.bind` or `.call' are easy to remember
and use.
When I look at Angular2 my eyes hurt: *[hidden]* , **ngFor, #field.* I
mean, seriously, Angular 2 has an abuse of special characters.

With Aurelia, once you learn to build custom attributes and custom elements
you exponentially grow productivity.

That's my choice :)






On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
> and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
> close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
> a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
> like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic
> wobbling Turboencabulator 
> propped up by a half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If
> the time comes when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to
> make a living , then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin.
>
> Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of extra-terrestrial
> life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean dictatorship and the
> extinction of JavaScript.
>
> *GK*
>
> On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter  wrote:
>
>> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
>> forced to look at this stuff.
>>
>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>>
>>> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
>>> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
>>> from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
>>> will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
>>> on any of the frameworks.
>>>
>>> Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
>>> angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
>>> reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
>>> and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
>>> available for those apps.
>>>
>>> When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs
>>> at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked
>>> me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get
>>> on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where
>>> the jobs were and viola, the rest is history.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:
>>>
 Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
 felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue
 now.

 On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:

> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates.
> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. 
> Both
> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
> before taking a 

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[DotNet Dude]

I must say I agree. I don't know a better alternative but working in JS
land or even TS still feels dirty. This can't be the way it will stay.

On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
> and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
> close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
> a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
> like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic
> wobbling Turboencabulator 
> propped up by a half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If
> the time comes when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to
> make a living , then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin.
>
> Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of extra-terrestrial
> life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean dictatorship and the
> extinction of JavaScript.
>
> *GK*
>
> On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter  > wrote:
>
>> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
>> forced to look at this stuff.
>>
>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright > > wrote:
>>
>>> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
>>> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
>>> from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
>>> will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
>>> on any of the frameworks.
>>>
>>> Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
>>> angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
>>> reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
>>> and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
>>> available for those apps.
>>>
>>> When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs
>>> at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked
>>> me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get
>>> on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where
>>> the jobs were and viola, the rest is history.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:
>>>
 Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
 felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue
 now.

 On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:

> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates.
> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. 
> Both
> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
> before taking a more serious look.
>
> T.
>
> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:
>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
>>> ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright
>>>
>>
>> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem
>> is still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one
>> ... Vue.js -- *GK*
>>
>
>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tom Rutter]

Totally agree. First Angular2 and then React almost turned me off Web dev
altogether but Aurelia gave me hope... not so sure now that Aurelia doesn't
look like is getting much love to keep it alive.

On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Corneliu I. Tusnea 
wrote:

> I'm one of the lovers of Aurelia (and I know Wal also on this list uses
> Aurelia).
>
> For me Aurelia is has one of the best designs possible. Clean and easy to
> use. Everything is simply obvious.
> With Aurelia I never had to think "how do you do this or that". It's all
> simple and natural.
> DI is beautiful, binding is obvious, templates are easy to read and the
> html extensions like `repeat.for`,  `.bind` or `.call' are easy to remember
> and use.
> When I look at Angular2 my eyes hurt: *[hidden]* , **ngFor, #field.* I
> mean, seriously, Angular 2 has an abuse of special characters.
>
> With Aurelia, once you learn to build custom attributes and custom
> elements you exponentially grow productivity.
>
> That's my choice :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Greg Keogh  > wrote:
>
>> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
>> and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
>> close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
>> a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
>> like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic
>> wobbling Turboencabulator
>>  propped up by a
>> half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If the time comes
>> when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to make a living ,
>> then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin.
>>
>> Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of
>> extra-terrestrial life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean
>> dictatorship and the extinction of JavaScript.
>>
>> *GK*
>>
>> On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter > > wrote:
>>
>>> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
>>> forced to look at this stuff.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright >> > wrote:
>>>
 After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
 application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
 from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
 will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
 on any of the frameworks.

 Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
 angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
 reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
 and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
 available for those apps.

 When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs
 at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked
 me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get
 on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where
 the jobs were and viola, the rest is history.



 On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:

> Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
> felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at 
> Vue
> now.
>
> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
>> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa 
>> templates.
>> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. 
>> Both
>> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
>> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
>> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
>> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
>> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
>> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
>> before taking a more serious look.
>>
>> T.
>>
>> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
 ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright

>>>
>>> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem
>>> is still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh 

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Corneliu I. Tusnea]

I'm one of the lovers of Aurelia (and I know Wal also on this list uses
Aurelia).

For me Aurelia is has one of the best designs possible. Clean and easy to
use. Everything is simply obvious.
With Aurelia I never had to think "how do you do this or that". It's all
simple and natural.
DI is beautiful, binding is obvious, templates are easy to read and the
html extensions like `repeat.for`,  `.bind` or `.call' are easy to remember
and use.
When I look at Angular2 my eyes hurt: *[hidden]* , **ngFor, #field.* I
mean, seriously, Angular 2 has an abuse of special characters.

With Aurelia, once you learn to build custom attributes and custom elements
you exponentially grow productivity.

That's my choice :)






On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
> and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
> close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
> a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
> like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic
> wobbling Turboencabulator 
> propped up by a half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If
> the time comes when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to
> make a living , then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin.
>
> Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of extra-terrestrial
> life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean dictatorship and the
> extinction of JavaScript.
>
> *GK*
>
> On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter  wrote:
>
>> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
>> forced to look at this stuff.
>>
>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>>
>>> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
>>> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
>>> from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
>>> will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
>>> on any of the frameworks.
>>>
>>> Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
>>> angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
>>> reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
>>> and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
>>> available for those apps.
>>>
>>> When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs
>>> at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked
>>> me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get
>>> on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where
>>> the jobs were and viola, the rest is history.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:
>>>
 Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
 felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue
 now.

 On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:

> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates.
> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. 
> Both
> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
> before taking a more serious look.
>
> T.
>
> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:
>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
>>> ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright
>>>
>>
>> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem
>> is still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one
>> ... Vue.js -- *GK*
>>
>
>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tony Wright]

Haha nice. I'm so glad I don't have to use pure javascript. Typescript is
my client language of choice.

The reality is that you can shift a fair bit of workload from the server to
the browser by utilising javascript frameworks, and at the same time get a
much more responsive, rich, snappy web app. (Almost) the only interaction
with the server is via webapi calls. I say almost because I still
personally use the single page cshtml for authentication and authorisation.

Behind webapi I am still using c#, sql server, entity framework, and even
the entity framework canvas.

Quite frankly, I quite enjoy the challenge, but I do wish they would clean
up the syntax as it really is a downer.

On 24 Aug 2017 7:32 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:

> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
> and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
> close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
> a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
> like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic
> wobbling Turboencabulator 
> propped up by a half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If
> the time comes when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to
> make a living , then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin.
>
> Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of extra-terrestrial
> life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean dictatorship and the
> extinction of JavaScript.
>
> *GK*
>
> On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter  wrote:
>
>> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
>> forced to look at this stuff.
>>
>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>>
>>> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
>>> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
>>> from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
>>> will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
>>> on any of the frameworks.
>>>
>>> Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
>>> angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
>>> reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
>>> and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
>>> available for those apps.
>>>
>>> When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs
>>> at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked
>>> me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get
>>> on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where
>>> the jobs were and viola, the rest is history.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:
>>>
 Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
 felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue
 now.

 On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:

> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates.
> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. 
> Both
> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
> before taking a more serious look.
>
> T.
>
> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:
>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
>>> ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright
>>>
>>
>> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem
>> is still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one
>> ... Vue.js -- *GK*
>>
>
>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Greg Keogh]

Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic
wobbling Turboencabulator 
propped up by a half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If
the time comes when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to make
a living , then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin.

Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of extra-terrestrial
life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean dictatorship and the
extinction of JavaScript.

*GK*

On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter  wrote:

> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
> forced to look at this stuff.
>
> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>
>> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
>> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
>> from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
>> will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
>> on any of the frameworks.
>>
>> Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
>> angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
>> reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
>> and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
>> available for those apps.
>>
>> When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs
>> at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked
>> me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get
>> on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where
>> the jobs were and viola, the rest is history.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:
>>
>>> Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
>>> felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue
>>> now.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>>>
 Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
 ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates.
 They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. Both
 Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
 to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
 Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
 the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
 stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
 on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
 before taking a more serious look.

 T.

 On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:

> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
>> ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright
>>
>
> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem
> is still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one
> ... Vue.js -- *GK*
>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tom Rutter]

Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
forced to look at this stuff.

On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:

> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
> from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
> will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
> on any of the frameworks.
>
> Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
> angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
> reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
> and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
> available for those apps.
>
> When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs at
> the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked me
> out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get on
> board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where the
> jobs were and viola, the rest is history.
>
>
>
> On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  > wrote:
>
>> Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
>> felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue
>> now.
>>
>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright > > wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
>>> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates.
>>> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. Both
>>> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
>>> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
>>> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
>>> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
>>> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
>>> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
>>> before taking a more serious look.
>>>
>>> T.
>>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:
>>>
 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
> ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright
>

 Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem is
 still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one ...
 Vue.js -- *GK*

>>>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tony Wright]

After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
from people who are still in a  circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
on any of the frameworks.

Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of
angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same
reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps,
and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path
available for those apps.

When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs at
the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked me
out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get on
board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where the
jobs were and viola, the rest is history.



On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:

> Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really
> felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue
> now.
>
> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks
>> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates.
>> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. Both
>> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies
>> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
>> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
>> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
>> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
>> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
>> before taking a more serious look.
>>
>> T.
>>
>> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
 ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright

>>>
>>> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem is
>>> still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one ...
>>> Vue.js -- *GK*
>>>
>>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tom Rutter]

Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really felt
right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue now.

On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:

> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks ago,
> only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates. They
> will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. Both Vue
> and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies to
> make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of
> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all
> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's
> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment
> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer
> before taking a more serious look.
>
> T.
>
> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh"  > wrote:
>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh
>>> ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright
>>>
>>
>> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem is
>> still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one ...
>> Vue.js -- *GK*
>>
>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tom Rutter]

Thanks Tony. I will have a look. I tried React and can't believe anyone
would ever bother with it - absolutely atrocious compared to Aurelia!

On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright  wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> It doesn't appear to have achieved the take up necessary to make it in the
> enterprise. Also, Rob Eisner has gone and joined Microsoft and doesnt
> appear to have done much with it since.
>
> The three biggest players are now Vue, react and angular.
>
> I wrote an article on this which you can find on my linked in page. I
> tried to remain as balanced as I could. Let me know what you think.
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-should-i-choose-
> enterprise-tony-wright
>
> Kind regards, Tony
>
>
>
> On 24 Aug 2017 3:01 PM, "Tom Rutter"  > wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I'm loving Aurelia at the moment. I recall a few on this list saying they
>> use it over the Angular and React. Is this still the case? There doesn't
>> seem to be much work for Aurelia devs that I can see...
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tom
>>
>

Re: Visual Studio 2017 and WWF

[Stephen Price]

On a completely unrelated note, I got a call from a recruiter who's found me 
roles in the past (there's a couple of good ones - recruiters, that is) for a 
Silverlight role.
I laughed and said, really? Someone is looking for a Silverlight developer?!
He replied yes. To remove it.

I just about lost it, crying with laughter. Might be worth leaving Silverlight 
on your Linked in profile (or change it to "removal of")

On 24 Aug. 2017 3:29 pm, Greg Keogh  wrote:
I think I found the answer here:

Thank you for your feedback! The .NET 3.5 Workflow project type is no longer 
supported in VS2017. This is by design as WF from .NET 3.5 (System.Workflow) 
has been deprecated since 2012. While you will not be able to create new 
projects, it is still possible to open old projects if you install Office 
Developer Tools. But only SharePoint 2010 workflows are still supported.

I forgot that there was some huge WWF update years ago and all the plumbing and 
libraries changed. The project I'm trying to open is the old style that 
references System.Workflow. As a test I created a new stub WWF project and I 
see it references System.Activities.

So it looks like the project which opened in VS2015 two weeks ago is no longer 
supported by VS2017 ... another subtle trap for the complacent or trusting. The 
comment above hints that I might be able to open it if certain conditions are 
met, but I'm not confident of the outcome and waste of time.

GK

On 22 August 2017 at 08:51, Greg Keogh 
> wrote:
After upgrading to Visual Studio 2017 I can't open any Windows Workflow 
projects (Incompatible, The application is not installed).

Various advice from searches suggests to check WWF in the Individual Components 
list (seems obvious), but it weirdly makes no difference. Others suggest you 
need SharePoint support, others suggest Framework 3.5 is needed. It all makes 
no difference.

There must be some other dependent piece of dark matter that I can't find. Any 
ideas anyone?

Greg K

Re: Visual Studio 2017 and WWF

[Jamie Surman]

No, I think you will find it should be able to open. Our workflow projects are 
very old, and they open just fine. We did upgrade them from .Net 3.5 to 4.0 
last year, but this was literally just a matter of changing the framework 
target, there was no other change required. Looking at the references, they are 
referencing System.Workflow.Activities and various other System.Workflow 
libraries. You can create new workflow projects too (in .Net 4 or later).Anyone 
who has to work in Workflow has my great sympathy though, it is a horrible 
technology.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017, 8:29:30 AM GMT+1, Greg Keogh  
wrote:

I think I found the answer here:
Thank you for your feedback! The .NET 3.5 Workflow project type is no longer 
supported in VS2017. This is by design as WF from .NET 3.5 (System.Workflow) 
has been deprecated since 2012. While you will not be able to create new 
projects, it is still possible to open old projects if you install Office 
Developer Tools. But only SharePoint 2010 workflows are still supported. 
I forgot that there was some huge WWF update years ago and all the plumbing and 
libraries changed. The project I'm trying to open is the old style that 
references System.Workflow. As a test I created a new stub WWF project and I 
see it references System.Activities.
So it looks like the project which opened in VS2015 two weeks ago is no longer 
supported by VS2017 ... another subtle trap for the complacent or trusting. The 
comment above hints that I might be able to open it if certain conditions are 
met, but I'm not confident of the outcome and waste of time.
GK

On 22 August 2017 at 08:51, Greg Keogh  wrote:

After upgrading to Visual Studio 2017 I can't open any Windows Workflow 
projects (Incompatible, The application is not installed).
Various advice from searches suggests to check WWF in the Individual Components 
list (seems obvious), but it weirdly makes no difference. Others suggest you 
need SharePoint support, others suggest Framework 3.5 is needed. It all makes 
no difference.
There must be some other dependent piece of dark matter that I can't find. Any 
ideas anyone?
Greg K

Re: Visual Studio 2017 and WWF

[Greg Keogh]

I think I found the answer here:

*Thank you for your feedback! The .NET 3.5 Workflow project type is no
longer supported in VS2017. This is by design as WF from .NET 3.5
(System.Workflow) has been deprecated since 2012. While you will not be
able to create new projects, it is still possible to open old projects if
you install Office Developer Tools. But only SharePoint 2010 workflows are
still supported.*

I forgot that there was some huge WWF update years ago and all the plumbing
and libraries changed. The project I'm trying to open is the old style that
references System.Workflow. As a test I created a new stub WWF project and
I see it references System.Activities.

So it looks like the project which opened in VS2015 two weeks ago is no
longer supported by VS2017 ... another subtle trap for the complacent or
trusting. The comment above hints that I *might* be able to open it if
certain conditions are met, but I'm not confident of the outcome and waste
of time.

*GK*

On 22 August 2017 at 08:51, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> After upgrading to Visual Studio 2017 I can't open any Windows Workflow
> projects (Incompatible, The application is not installed).
>
> Various advice from searches suggests to check WWF in the Individual
> Components list (seems obvious), but it weirdly makes no difference. Others
> suggest you need SharePoint support, others suggest Framework 3.5 is
> needed. It all makes no difference.
>
> There must be some other dependent piece of dark matter that I can't find.
> Any ideas anyone?
>
> *Greg K*
>

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Greg Keogh]

>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-should-i-choose-
> enterprise-tony-wright
>

Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem is
still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one ...
Vue.js -- *GK*

Re: [OT] Aurelia use

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tom,

It doesn't appear to have achieved the take up necessary to make it in the
enterprise. Also, Rob Eisner has gone and joined Microsoft and doesnt
appear to have done much with it since.

The three biggest players are now Vue, react and angular.

I wrote an article on this which you can find on my linked in page. I tried
to remain as balanced as I could. Let me know what you think.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-should-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright

Kind regards, Tony



On 24 Aug 2017 3:01 PM, "Tom Rutter"  wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I'm loving Aurelia at the moment. I recall a few on this list saying they
> use it over the Angular and React. Is this still the case? There doesn't
> seem to be much work for Aurelia devs that I can see...
>
> Cheers
> Tom
>

Re: Visual Studio 2017 and WWF

[Jamie Surman]

Funnily enough we had to do this at my work, and I can confirm it is indeed 
possible.
To get Workflow to work need to install
 Office\SharePoint development switch to individual components tab in the 
install, and select Windows Workkflow Foundation
(ref: 
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/problem/3903/cannot-load-workflow-foundation-project.html)
Jamie
On Thursday, August 24, 2017, 6:00:09 AM GMT+1, Greg Keogh  
wrote:

After upgrading to Visual Studio 2017 I can't open any Windows Workflow 
projects (Incompatible, The application is not installed).
Various advice from searches suggests to check WWF in the Individual Components 
list (seems obvious), but it weirdly makes no difference. Others suggest you 
need SharePoint support, others suggest Framework 3.5 is needed. It all makes 
no difference.
There must be some other dependent piece of dark matter that I can't find. Any 
ideas anyone?
Greg K