On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Bob Calco<[email protected]> wrote:
> In my case, I have this thing about "writing code" in XML. But beyond that > subjective objection, the whole architecture of WPF is simply different -- > better being, as it were, in the eye of the beholder--and will take some > getting used to. I get the vision for it, and it's a classic case of a > software development shop-centric technology, i.e., not really driven by the > consumers of software so much as its producers. It's motivated by a desire > to get UI out of the hands of developers who generally suck at it and into > the hands of designers who usually can't code their way out of a paper > bag... but in my case, the interior decorator in me actually enjoys building > nice UIs, and I view XAML as a step toward HTML/CSS-induced spaghetti code > hell. I never really liked web development because of these "languages". ----------------- Are you using Expression, or just VS? I had the great experience of having a designer working with Mimeo who wanted to try this out, and the two of us liked it but it was just a TEST and we had mountains of work that was already committed. > XML is one of those over-hyped, ubiquitous buzzwords that prove how pampered > and grossly inefficient we have become as developers, what with all this > hard drive space and bandwidth to waste... it's the LDL of protocols. > Moreover, I was deftly avoiding carpal tunnel until XML actually made me > type those blasted angle brackets all the time...;) The only thing it has > going for it is industry standardization, which for me is another word for > design-by-committee. ------ What is great is that the code in your "xml" is digestable in an application outside of VS. The designer can do things that will NOT interfere with your code, or so the story goes. hehehehehehe. > Another thing... the WPF designer is a relative pain. The first few times I > tried to rename my main form from Window1.xaml to MainForm.xaml (as is my > custom) and it took me a half an hour to figure out all the places I needed > to change that reference in XML, I decided I'd wait awhile to jump on the > bandwagon. ---- yep > WPF will wait a little longer before I inevitably dig in. For now, I'm > writing this system using WinForms, the admittedly inferior but oh-so > familiar "devil I know." I'd rather exercise my brain cells on truly > interesting new technologies. :) ------------------------- I find that WPF cann allow you to present representations on DATA in visual objects on the screen. Today you can see a graph of data and pick out the message, You also could see the number in RED and know that you are in a loss condition. Or you could change the background color in an grid depending on data valuation. Sure we all know these things and do them to a limited extent today. WPF gives you much more granular control over the visual display because of the Direct X engine. The downside is that WPF is dissociated from data as compared to the current WinForm of today. Sure if you code in other languages you consider that as SOP. That is the biggest hurdle that many have hit hard in jumping over. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer SQL Server DBA Web and Winform Development Independent Contractor 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.
