 |
|
If you clear the sh*tpipe, there should be room up there for the whole lot. Including the timepiece.
Q. Hey man! have you sorted out the finite soup machine?
A. Why yes, it's celery or tomato.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: ure, it's the most over-hyped Kickstarter funded project ever
As I've seen in the video there is a cause why one can hype it: It is f*cking amazing!
But I am more the guy who takes his Ultrabook everywhere with him - Therefore I am waiting for my Freitag Messenger-Bag[^] arriving at home. Waterproof an resistant against nearly everything.
Edit: Here is a link to a vid commercial about Freitag bags:
Clickety[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: My Pebble watch[^], that is.
And wasn't there some news thingy about Apple coming out with some iWatch thingy? The Pebble People should Pursue Punishment
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
With all sorts of gadgets shipping to you first like Ultrabook, Peeble, Ultrabook Convertible, and you have Nexus, iPhone......... don't you think you need an App that tells you how many gadgets you have and their physical location and the Apps installed in them and utility of those apps and suggest you what you should use and when?
|
|
|
|
|
I simply close my eyes and feel the goodness surrounding me.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I simply close my eyes and feel the goodness surrounding me.
In certain situations you can get slapped for doing that. 
Schenectady? What am I doing in Schenectady?
|
|
|
|
|
So, I have been facing a lot of Internet issues lately, so I assumed that the slow loading of Codeproject, and some other websites was my fault. But then I checked a website with high-speed servers and got this:
[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/289v289.png[/IMG]
The most annoying part about this is that this has been the fastest load (~2 Seconds), every other page I load takes rougly six-seven seconds if not more.
Edit: Firefox(Probably not the best webbrowser anymore) just crashed attempting to post this. 
|
|
|
|
|
When I was creating this message, the browser (IE9) froze and I had to force quit it and recreate the message. 
|
|
|
|
|
It's so annoying indeed. :(
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that has happened once to me as well. I found out later it was because they were doing an update.
Delete buttons are back in QA  .
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
We are in the process of updating the servers. Things should be back to normal in a few minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Dennis wrote: back to normal
Normal is just a setting on the washing machine.
Bob Dole The internet is a great way to get on the net.
 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen this popular thing on here. It's called WPF, I never really looked into it, because I am not into new things. But I've seen some cool things you can create with it. But, what exactly is it, is it different than Forms C#?
|
|
|
|
|
|
C# is a language.
WPF is a presentation framework (like window's forms).
You can use VB, C# or other languages in the creation of applications that use Windows Forms, Silverlight, or WPF for the UI.
I'd go with Silverlight (I am actually) since it most closely matches what will be available in Windows 8.
|
|
|
|
|
I see. I still wish Microsoft would allow your application to contain every referenced DLL, so people do not have to download the .NET framework.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll have that issue with anything written in Visual Studio.
I'd imagine you'd have that issue with anthing written in any technology.
|
|
|
|
|
Not true. If you're writing native C++/Win32/MFC code you can distribute all the runtime lib and MFC dependencies as DLLs in your install directory. Very clean. Its a shame the newer technologies seem to completely ignore deployment hassles and just dump it all on the end user to install some framework/runtime just to run your app. Xcopy deployment is the way it should be imo 
Its not that you have the issue in any technology, its that you have the issue when the technologies are built without regard for deployment.
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree strongly. The one framework installation to rule them all is a major security enhancement. A single update gets library fixes deployed to every client application; without it most would remain exploitable for months or years in the future because even of the application developer did create a new redistributable with the fix most users would never check for a new version.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging 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
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's a good point and is a strength of the single central update approach. On the downside, its possible that the single update can then break older software. Or another scenario is where you want to install and run 3 different versions of an application which was built against 3 versions of some dependency which might not be completely backwards compatible. Being able to have multiple versions of an app installed side by side and each using the runtime they were built for can be a nice feature.
But the security concern is a valid one and one approach for that is the central update. You can distribute with your own dependencies though provided you do keep up to date and your users keep up to date with things.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Calkins wrote: Being able to have multiple versions of an app installed side by side and each using the runtime they were built for can be a nice feature.
Which is why breaking changes are contained to major framework version increments, the only changes between major versions are to close exploits, and you can install and force an app to run on an old version of the framework. If you write software that relies on an exploit in a run time to work, it's not only your code that deserves to be broken.
Edit: Whoracle's attempts to try and do the absolute minimum changes needed to close an exploit without breaking any applications that are doing similarly doggy activities was part of why we recently had the barrage of serial exploits where slightly modified versions of the attack worked around each new patch.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging 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
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying but its not necessarily a valid assumption that an application which is more self contained is doing anything "dodgy" or relying on exploits. Of course those things wouldn't be good
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: without breaking any applications that are doing similarly doggy activities
Is that like "It's a doggy dog world?"
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Calkins wrote: Yes, that's a good point and is a strength of the single central update
approach. On the downside, its possible that the single update can then break
older software. Or another scenario is where you want to install and run 3
different versions of an application which was built against 3 versions of some
dependency which might not be completely backwards compatible. Being able to
have multiple versions of an app installed side by side and each using the
runtime they were built for can be a nice feature.
That however is idealistic fantasy in the modern desktop OS.
The only that way that can happen is if you deliver the hardware with your software installed and with a license that does not allow the user to update anything on the hardware. Because otherwise any update to the system might, conceivably, break your software. Because that other software install might install an OS patch and that in turn might break your software.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, there's no way to completely insulate the app unless you lock down and control the system as you say. So there still is possibility that something could be broken by an update. Just like you probably can't do a 100% xcopy deployment, there's inevitably dependencies that creep in here and there. But it is possible to ship with the C RTL and MFC if you're using those and have a significant dependence under your control. Again, you then have to take care to update those as applicable.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're looking at it with rose colored glasses.
I'm pretty sure that is the sort of nonsense that frameworks were meant to fix.
|
|
|
|
|
My comment wasn't addressing use of frameworks, it was deployment of those frameworks. There are cases where being able to cleanly deploy with the framework embedded in the application can be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
What I meant to say was that I've never had an application cleanly deploy that way - not even using the scenario you present.
The C++ runtime, or the browser, or a .PDF reader, or Direct X, or such and such a toolkit, or security updates for the C++ runtime included with the software has to be updated, patched, re-installed, configured, homogenized, or a dozen user agreements signed, checked, read, viewed, or clicked through. This is with software distributed on a disk - because within 2 weeks the disk is out of date. Most of these require a re-boot whereas an update to Silverlight does not.
Yes, XCOPY would be very nice.
I've never had it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, thats true Maintaining a completely clean xcopy deployment might not be possible, but I try and achieve that to the degree it is possible. Noting the security concerns raised by the other poster, it is nice to be able to have a more self contained install and control the dependencies, but as was said, you then also have to be aware of updating and ensuring your users do so too.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Calkins wrote: Xcopy deployment is the way it should be imo
That's still possible, you'd just not be doing it in a managed environment. If you want the benefit of a complete framework, that's the price you pay.
Most machines will already have it, since quite some apps use it these days. It's also already baked in into the still supported Windows-systems. No, it won't run on Win98.
Dave Calkins wrote: Its not that you have the issue in any technology, its that you have the issue when the technologies are built without regard for deployment.
You think it's more efficient to compile the 20Mb runtime into the app itself? Remember that the .NET framework is a bit "more" than the Delphi VCL, and also comes with a VM.
..but do feel free to write C++/MFC code.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think 20MB is a significant size to worry about, no. Actually if you compile it "into the app itself" as you said it would likely be smaller, if you distribute all the libraries as DLLs then the size is more like the 20MB you're referring to (assuming 32-bit and 64-bit libs are included). And C++/MFC code is exactly what I was talking about. Its a case where you can ship with your libraries and not require your framework to be installed separately. Not saying that applies in every case, just that it is a case where you have the ability to do that. Obviously if you're targeting .NET you then have to deal with the runtime install. It is helpful that, if the user is installing windows updates, they'll likely get the framework updates through that.
Perhaps the "without regard for deployment" was a bit strong, just expressing my appreciation for being able to just ship the libraries with the app when doing C++/MFC
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Calkins wrote: I don't think 20MB is a significant size to worry about, no. Actually if you compile it "into the app itself" as you said it would likely be smaller, if you distribute all the libraries as DLLs then the size is more like the 20MB you're referring to (assuming 32-bit and 64-bit libs are included)
More if you take the updates in account.
Dave Calkins wrote: And C++/MFC code is exactly what I was talking about. Its a case where you can ship with your libraries and not require your framework to be installed separately.
That's a set of libraries, whereas .NET runs a Virtual Machine. It'd be rather inefficient to compile that big a runtime into each app that uses it; makes more sense to have it as a part of Windows itself. Things like a GAC solve a lot of problems, that particular one caused by the XCopy behaviour. It gave us a DLL-hell, and applications with insecure and outdated libraries.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: That's a set of libraries, whereas .NET runs a Virtual Machine.
Yes, it would be a different matter trying to apply the xcopy deployment to the entire .NET framework, I agree But it is nice that with C++/MFC you can deploy that way and the size penalty is not significant. If you take the approach of shipping C++/MFC libraries with the application, then yes you do need to make sure you update them and that your users do update the software since you can't rely on the Windows update mechanism to push the new framework updates out. In terms of DLL hell, using a private assembly within your app install directory should not adversely affect other apps. You do have the extra space by shipping with your own copy, but in this case that isn't a huge penalty.
Speaking of the GAC, it had the problem of replacing DLL hell with manifest hell. It appears MS decided manifest hell was actually worse than DLL hell as VS2010 reverts back to a much simpler approach with the C++ runtime libs and MFC
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Calkins wrote: Obviously if you're targeting .NET you then have to deal with the runtime
install. It is helpful that, if the user is installing windows updates, they'll
likely get the framework updates through that.
Why not use the prerequisite feature in the windows installer? It allows you to bundle a self-installing copy of the required framework with the C# app.
As for xcopy installtion, explicitly call out a version of the libraries that was pushed out as a service pack so you're guaranteed it's already in their side-by-side cache... or simpler yet, remove the manifest and let the system use the latest version installed on the user's machine.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
We had a product written in C# (.net 4.0). Albeit there are many downloads, the actual successful install rate is a lot lower. Part of the causes is because .net 4.0 is not installed on a user's machine by default up to Windows 7 and many users either can't install the framework on their own or are not willing to take time to do it. It is strange that Microsoft developed the framework and somehow does not make it easy for a user to use it.
Having way too many emails to deal with? Try our SQLized solution: Email Aggregation Manager[ ^] which gets your email sorted, found and organized beyond known precision.
|
|
|
|
|
True, I've seen that particular issue myself. Strange though, since lots of other "libraries" tend to be packaged together with the app. Take e.g. a game which uses DirectX 10, it would usually have the DX10 installer on its CD as well - to install if the client doesn't have it yet. Usually it would even be "automatic" from the main game's install.
Otherwise, you'd need something like the Linux guys have with true application managers: i.e. your distribution simply lists its dependencies and the manager then handles downloading & installing them for you. Would be nice if such was available to Windows apps. Though only for 1st world internet access. Something which irks the $%&# out of me is an install which downloads another, which takes up an hour to transfer - so I can imagine the users stopping this when they become irritated.
As for a VM linked into your executable (or packaged together), depends on the size I guess - I'd hate to have to link in an entire JVM/CLI for a "simple" app. Most Lisp implementations actually go about it this way when compiling to EXE: link in the lisp engine. But the more "optimal" lisps would either only link in the actually used parts or convert the lisp in totality to C code and then compile that. But I wouldn't mind too much if the Dot Net 4.0 installer is packaged together on the same CD as the program - might be an issue for install from on-line though.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you may want to use an installer that let you name dependencies and install them while they install your program, I work with a .NET 4 program and the installer detects if you have the .NET Framework 4 installed, if you don't it download it from the internet and install it along with this application.
If your users normally don't have internet access, then you may want to bundle a full copy of the .NET Framework 4 setup program with yours.
|
|
|
|
|
They used to, which is why so many machines running Win 3.x and Win 95 were broken.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I wish Microsoft push major .NET Frameworks updates as important updates in Windows Update...
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: You can use VB, C# or other languages in the creation of applications
FTFY
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
I'll never understand why people hate on VB.
I can understand not liking a particular language - what I don't understand is being bothered by someone else's use of it.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually write VB part of the time. I don't have an issue with it at all.
Isn't it a Meme?
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
People like to pick on the VB folks because they cannot defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
At work I write VB and C# whereas at home my preference is for C#(purely because there are more articles on C# and I have a preference for its elegance).
There really is not much of a difference, in my experience, and I find I can swap between the two quite easily.
There have even been cases where I have created a DLL in VB because it was easier to do that than write the code in the C#(and vice versa).
In some ways this is the beauty of the .Net framework - you can program in multiple languages picking the one that suits you and your team best.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: There have even been cases where I have created a DLL in VB because it was easier to do
|
|
|
|
|
JimmyRopes wrote: GuyThiebaut wrote: There have even been cases where I have created a DLL in VB because it was easier to do
Before .net 4.0 and C# optional parameters writing COM wrappers was often easier in VB because you could use 3 named parameters to call the COM object instead of having to seed your three values in between several dozen null's. I'm not aware of any cases where VB.net still has significantly better language support for a feature than C# (and VB's LINQ syntax is an abomination, and LINQ has becoem such a large part of my programming habits that it's already at -100 just for that). If there still are things easier to do in VB I'm eager to be proven wrong because the less time I spend swearing at tools that make my job harder than it has to be the happier I am at work.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging 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
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: Before .net 4.0 and C# optional parameters writing COM wrappers was often easier in VB
That was before Micro$oft abandoned their golden child. As they often do they champion a technology and then abandon it.
These days, there is no reason, except for getting paid to do it, to code in VB.
<confession>
I once had a contract coding in VB6. Yes I am a code whore.
Pay me enough and I will code in any language you like.
It doesn't mean I like it or that I am proud of my actions.
And yes, I did like that I could use an enum as an input parameter to a dll function and have a drop down to select for that parameter.
That is the only thing I liked about VB that I couldn't replicate in C#.
</confession>
|
|
|
|
|
It was a few year back, I would have to try and dig out what it was but I think Dan has hit it on the head and it was something to do with speech recognition and COM wrappers.
I have recently done the opposite where I wrote a DLL in C# for a VB application because I knew I would be using the DLL again and as I mentioned I have a preference for C# due to its elegance
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
It's "Windows Forms", not "window's forms". Don't write the apostrophe.
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, I made this and this (both funky UI's that would be hard to make with Windows Forms) in WPF with relative ease.
For one, the binding syntax is super customizable. It really makes MVVM super powerful. On top of that, user interfaces are super customizable. You can put at tree inside a button inside a rich text control (or whatever you want). And since views are templated, you can override views and make them look however you want. And since it's all declarative, it's really easy to do. And pretty much everything can be nested and layed out however you like, as with this example of a label/circle/button inside of a button:
<Button>
<StackPanel>
<TextBlock>Hello</TextBlock>
<Ellipse Width="100" Height="100" Fill="Azure"></Ellipse>
<Button>Nested Button!</Button>
</StackPanel>
</Button>
If you want something fun to work on, WPF is where it's at (though the new WinRT stuff is similar in that it uses XAML and it's the way Microsoft seems to be going from now on).
Note to hamsters: I had to recreate this entire post, because my browser froze when I pasted the above code snippet. 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
