On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Dave Crozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
> I concur with the other group comments but would suggest that you seriously
> look at C# as opposed to VB.Net. The execution speed is much superior and
> the OOP things you can do bear more of a similarity to VFP than VB.
------------------------------------
Speed is the same between VB & C#. Curly brackets are cool so do C#.
> My comments, so far, apart from the changed language syntax, having written
> some 20-30 C# applications are as follows:
>
> Pro:
> 1. My main gripe - Data Binding of Objects to UI classes are a pain in
> VS2005 unless you bind to a Datasource (VFP Cursor equivalent). You can bind
> an object property quite easily to a textbox for example but the
> relationship is one way only i.e changing the Control u[dates the object
> property but NOT Vice versa without a lot of messing about. This has been
> improved in VS2008 but is still nowhere as easy as in VFP. There is no
> concept of "Controlsource" as we VFPer's know it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That scares the crap out of me. Auto Update of the backend is for losers!
This is disconnected data, like it should be! You get tiers this way.
You could make your DAL (Data Access Layer) as a project and add it to
all of your future projects. Or you could have your Data via a Web
Service that is exposed.
> 2. Access to outside data using DataAdapters is easy and you can access VFP,
> Access, SQL, MySQL with relative ease even if not the speed of native VFP
> Tables.
>
> 3. Debugging in the IDE is superior to VFP in many respects.
------------------
Yep.
> 4. Applications automatically have that "Vista/Office 2K7 Look" without any
> additional hard work to tweak the UI components.
------------------------------------
You can purchase controls from other vendors as well and get a better
visual look.
> 3. Any graphics work is a breeze and shows the limitations of VFP - even
> with the GDI extensions. Using Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is
> really neat to design your front end - but once again the learning curve is
> massive.
------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit is that your team can interact with a Designer over the course
of the project and have them TWEAK your gui for LOOKS. They don't
write code for data action/reaction instead they write code for
display containers. I will venture to say that a Web app will take
the GUI team 25% to code the actions and 75% to make it look like the
wireframes.
> 4. As with VFP there is always more than one way to "do things". The problem
> is that there are usually dozens of ways!!
>------------------------------
Understatement here.
> 5. Very little blog space seems to concentrate on "desktop applications".
> Most of the VS info inevitably leads you towards ASP web development.
--------------------------------
agree as well. I think it is because few people write desktop apps any more.
> 6. The .Net framework is extremely stable (despite being developed by M$
> <grin>.
-----------------------------------
Yep
> 7. LINQ, if you can get your head around the concept will totally transform
> the way you code. As VFPer's we have a head start here but implementation of
> the feature is not easy after mahy years of traditional programming in VFP!
--------------------------------------------
Linq is just bass-ackwards
select id from myTable where custno = custno << Old way with SQL syntax
Guid tableID = (from mT in MyEntity.myTable
where mt.Custno equals Order.custno
select mT.ID).First() ;
But to extract data directly into an object.
var Cust = (from mT in MyEntity.myTable
where mt.Custno equals Order.custno
select new Customer
{
CustID = mt.ID,
CustCompany = mt.Company,
..........
}).ToList() ;
return Cust;
> Cons:
> 2. Learning the features of the framework is initially a daunting prospect.
> It is simply too big. Thankfully there are many sites which can help here.
> Without the Internet you are literally swamped with Framework calls - many
> of which you will never need, with the ones you do need being very well
> hidden.
--------------------------------------
Yep but in the end you will need to know about 1/3 of it to be proficient.
> 5. I still can't get used to using a "==" as opposed to a "=" in an if
> statement and having to use != as opposed to <>. These still screw me up all
> the time. One other construct that is a pain is the VFP "Do Case" equivalent
> i.e Switch. You can forget about putting in case <....> statements that
> refer to any variable/function as you have to reference the variable(s)
> specified in the initial "Switch" statement.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
Switch and do case are very similar.
> 6. Your wallet will suffer if you go out and buy some good books on C# and
> VS as I still haven't found one definitive publication that covers the
> "Things that VFP can do". So far I have purchased about 20 books and I'm
> still looking.
---------------------------------------------------------
Buy into the LearnVisualStudio.net
<http://www.learnvisualstudio.net/Browse.aspx> for the page that has
their list of videos they have made so far. You usaully get a project
(code) and the video in the download. They are very focused ans short
enough to give your the "Matrix" like experience.
> 7. Finally, why oh why don't they have a "with...endwith" construct in C#.
> This would be a great aid in productivity. This is one of the only features
> that VB.NET has which make it an attractive prospect.
------------------------
--
Stephen Russell
Sr. Production Systems Programmer
Mimeo.com
Memphis TN
901.246-0159
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
