Greg (H), sometime earlier this year I finally reached a point where I can create a WPF app at roughly the same speed as a WinForms app. It took years to find the right patterns, use command routing wisely, overcome the countless quirks, and finally become proficient at coding UIs in XAML by hand. I have loads of pre-baked WPF code now to help me write new apps faster. I have found that WPF is only superior if you need a really "rich" UI with elastic layout, shading, opacity, resizing and animations. Otherwise, WinForms are robust and familiar, the designer is fabulous and the DataGridView control is a dream compared to the tangled nightmare of the WPF DataGrid -- Greg (K)
On 11 September 2013 00:51, Greg Harris <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Basic HTML will be simple CRUD table maintenance and reports. > Rich interaction, not in the initial plan. > > Winforms - Yes at this stage that is what I am thinking, the app needs to > do some extensive custom graphics which at this stage I intend to build up > with GDI+ as it is what I have used before, but I am open to suggestions. > > I may go with WPF but that is not the way I am thinking just now. As the > client wants to keep it cheap and fast. > > I like to look at job trends to see where the industry is going and > WPF/Silverlight has not been happy for 2 years: > http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=wpf%2Csilverlight&l=silverlight > > Regards > Greg (H) > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Greg Keogh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At this point I am working on a new app, it will have an HTML web site >>> for basic stuff and a downloadable win forms app for the intensive stuff, I >>> would much rather do it with SL but MS has so upset the SL story that it is >>> just not going to happen! >>> >> >> Oh boy, another scary response. Will the html "basic stuff" have any kind >> of rich interaction? Also, you really mean WinForms and not WPF? >> >> Greg (K) >> > >
