The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
I just need to add that trying to find and run an actual Xamarin example project for Visual Studio that works out of the box seems nigh impossible.
What has happened to development? We used to share code, throw it at a compiler and it would compile. That's simply not the case these days. Nuget packages disappearing or being updated so they provide conflicts with other libraries; the npn nightmare of downloads hundreds of Mb of packages; The mind boggling Android SDK hunt and seek (and make sure you have plenty of disk space); the soul destroying walled garden around iOS development. Not to mention the explosion of here-today-gone-tomorrow frameworks.
Something's gotta give. This space is ripe for an upheaval.
And people wonder why I still haven't moved onto mobile development. I'm still waiting for things to settle and a clear winner to be identified. Frankly at this rate I'm beginning to doubt I'm ever going to do any serious mobile development before I retire (and I'm in my 40s).
So glad you posted this. It's all so true.
It's more about tooling and libraries and hunting and all that bother than it is about actually programming.
I complain about Xamarin and in the same moment I think it is quite amazing and quite terrible.
It does all this -- suddenly turns to it does nothing!
I move begin work on native iOS on the same app and I think, "Oh no, I have to do all that stuff again. Give me Xamarin!"
The WinForm app works really well, but of course when anyone wants to install it then Windows warns them it's an unsigned app and could be dangerous.
Well, that means I need to get it into the Win10 App Store, but to do that I need to write it as a UWA. Arghgh!!!
Man, can I catch a break? You're worn out by the end of the day.
Then, the sun rises and you try it all again.
I thought it was supposed to be one world with one platform by now, eh?
The only way I can see around this is if some new framework which includes a virtual machine that has all the dependencies resolved comes into existence. The framework vm would then need to kick out the binaries with all dependenceis mathematically proven. Then developers will have a development environment that 'works' and a deployment that is proven.
I say all of this from living in cloud cuckoo land...
One of the issues I have seen where we all pull from trunk and 'some people' download and make changes that are then not submitted to trunk so that the build works perfectly locally for them but then trunk is broken and it takes a few days to fix trunk.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Wish me luck! (I seriously doubt the company, a global company) will go for it, as it will require them front-loading 50% of the payment for the staffing process, but I figure my proposal could at least serve as a baseline for vetting proposals from "real" companies that already have the existing staff to handle something like this.
Or possibly, your proposal will provide the method for them to do the project in house and the cost to justify not out sourcing.
It's happened to me on major difficu;lt engineering projects. They had the people and the resourcxes to do things in house, but didn't have anyone who knew what to do.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
I took on a side project a couple of months ago doing enhancements to an MS Access app. The guy I've been working with has quit. He told me that the company wants to continue using me. I think I'll be working one on one with the owner.
So, I see this as an opportunity to move them from Access to .Net. If they do it will most likely become a WPF app.
What I need is persuasive information. Just saying "Access sucks" won't do it. So, how would you approach this? What arguments can you give to help them decide to move to .Net?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
4) Access is not intended to be used as an enterprise database solution.
5) Finding skilled Access developers is becoming more difficult as time goes by because the money is in SQL Server.
6) Access sucks.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
Finding skilled Access developers is becoming more difficult as time goes by because the money is in SQL Server.
That should be enough reason IMO. Finding people willing to work with Access is only going to get more and more difficult, which means the longer they wait to transition to something else, the more expensive that transition will get in the long run.
I would argue 2 is incorrect. Access can be multiuser, but you have to implement it properly.
You need a central error handler that retries particular classes of errors
If (ErrorNum < 3000 Or ErrorNum > 4000) AND ErrorNum <> 2448 Then
'Process As Error
'Retry up to 60 times
(60 times for the same error no) before presenting any error to the user.
Also you need the code and data mdbs seperated into different databases.
This works like a charm for multi-user.
In addition to what John said.
Access is single user - MS has documentation stating the fact somewhere. This should be the single most compelling argument to change to an n# tiered solution.
Access is an OFFICE tool - that argument should kill all further discussions. I don't know the recent history of MS Office upgrades but in the 90s every upgrade would break the applications I had written in Access. Moving to SQL Server eliminated that horror.
Oh yeah and Access sucks!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
The assumption (overall) seems to be that Access is being used to "build" business apps.
The fact is, it's quite reasonable as a "user" tool for querying "back-end" "big" database systems like SQL Server, Oracle, MySQl, etc. For ad-hoc queries, Access is much simpler than SQL Management Studio, BI, and the like.
It can be used to analyze practically any data source including Access, Excel, CSV, SQL Server, Oracle, DBFs, ... and "join" them.
A knee-jerk rejection of Access is short-sighted ... particularly when it comes to "another quicky report request" that any thinking user could handle.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
So why not move the BE to SQL Server? There may certainly be a business case for that.
Stability and speed. In those respects Access, as a database container, is certainly inferior to SQL Server. And then there is the ease of creating SPs using CTEs etc that is way better than the Access Query Builder.
But as a tool to build user interfaces, ie forms and reports, for a custom solution it is very cost effective and in the hands of a good developer there are few restrictions.
So what is your business case for rewriting their entire application?
Mildly confused here. I have written several .Net applications which suck their data from Access, because that's what the client wanted. Up to half a dozen users is fine, as long as it's on a decent piece of iron. I do draw the line at VBA, though, as that is an anathema to a sensitive soul. The only downside is, as JSOP pointed out, security beyond a fairly trivial level.
Also, it is very little effort to upgrade the database itself to SQLserver, using the MS tools provided.
Access does not fully implement the SQL standard leading to awkward query design. This leads to long unproductive hours debugging even basic joins like the left before the right and then the nested parentheses.
Without syntax highlighting, it really gets my goat.
Translated to user speak; "whatever duration you want the project delivered, please double it."
What you want is "We should rewrite the app"
But, they will say, it works! They got a point here, haha...
If, for example, all they want is to "add 1 button", then rewriting the whole app for that is overkill...
On the other hand if the app is undergoing regularly maintenance and development, how much time will it takes to get the new WPF app is a critical argument. As well as the on going benefit after that, such as better performance, faster developement, easier maintenance (aka less long nagging bug).
Apple has continued (IMO) down the path of releasing software that doesn't live up to the beauty of their hardware. I updated my iPhone 6 to iOS 11 and put up with the first week of slowness, and crashes, and poor battery life, but even after an acceptable period of burn in the phone is just awful to use now. Apps can take 5-10 seconds to load. The camera can take even longer to be ready to roll. It's a huge shame, really.
Even so I'm not willing to move to Android for a bunch of reasons and there's really no alternative, so I've been thinking about moving up to a (relatively) cheap 7. That means I'm going to lose my headphone jack. I'm getting the shakes thinking about that.
Lots of phones have now gone jackless so I was wondering if this has generally been a good thing or a bad thing or a meh thing.
I'd be getting airpods, and any bluetooth headphones will work.
I guess my question is: has anyone gone into this thinking it would be an utter PITA and come out wondering what all the fuss was about. Or, did they go into it thinking it would be OK but there were all these "ah, I didn't think about that" issues.
Yes, but not as well, sound quality over A2DP sucks. And while Apt-X is ok-ish, it's of course not supported by Apple. Since it wasn't invented by them.
Apple uses lowish bitrate AAC which is better than A2DP but still inferior to Apt-x.
Personally I'm having a pair of Sennheiser Momentum, which was a compromise on a few parameters. (comfort came out as the winner, had I gone for sound I would've chosen Bowers&Wilkins P7)
They support Apt-x but I'm actually using them with the cable most of the time, since the sound get's so much clearer and less compressed.
But if you're getting earpods this whole discussion on sound quality is moot.
My main problem with going jackless is that I now have two sets of things to charge: The phone, and teh earbuds/headphones. They never seem to be in synch, so I am always recharging things over night, whether they need it or not. The headphones I use at work (Bose) can go for several days, but the little earbuds (also Bose) may not last the day.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
I've been using it with an Senheiser HD1 for a few months now with good results. (edit: I've had bluetooth connection pre-iOS 11, but now everything's nice)
It's not the smallest or cheapest wireless in-ear headphones, but it has pretty good battery life (which is my main requirements with any electronics) and the sound "profile" fits my hearing.
I don't have any particular problem with iOS 11 on my iPhone 6; I don't have the need right now to upgrade, and I will be waiting for the iPhoneX reviews and decide if an iPhone 8 or X will be the next one.
I already bought my Lumia 640 about a year ago, unlocked, $120, with taxes, and delivered at my door. The only Lumias I can still find today are way more expensive, now that MS has pretty much made it official they weren't putting more money into it.
@chris-maunder, I've used wired and wireless with my Apple iPhone 5, 5s, 6s Plus and 7s Plus.
iOS 11 is *clearly* optimized for iPhone 8.
I confidently conclude iOS 11 is purposely degraded for iPhones less than v8. My SpecBench marks validate this. I'm in the process of writing some further code tests to validate and publish my results.
The larger Dre Beats are great for "office", drowns out office noise.
AirPods are great for 'on the go'.
The problem with wireless, just like yer phone, is keeping track of keepin' 'em charged. I'd invest in the damned lightening to 2.5" audio jack converter, but ya can't charge yer damned iPhone with that devil of an adapter plugged in.
I confidently conclude iOS 11 is purposely degraded for iPhones less than v8
Dave and I had exactly this conversation today. I'd love to see your findings (as would the media at large)
keeping track of keepin' 'em charged
Yep. I'd be using the pods for calls when I need to charge the phone, or for when I'm driving and don't want to go on speakerphone. Not too often but often enough in situations where I definitely need the phone being charged at the same time (eg GPS running in car, or long days on the phone that kills the battery)
The firmware (and hardware) in iPhone 8 & X, at my first code run, is more 'optimized' for iOS 11 than firmware for earlier iPhones, which is valid/reasonable.
And, really, this is true of any Mac, iPod, iPad, iPhone and its corresponding OS going back decades, of which I can attest given I've been involved in validating the Golden Master release of MacOS and/or the initial PowerMacs once upon a time back in my Apple dayz...
That, and Mac clones like StarMax & Power Computing validate this as well with all the engineering problems they had with the ROM (firmware), especially keeping up with the latest Mac OS. Macintosh clone - Wikipedia[^]
Yet, the older geezer-ish-ness in me isn't liking that, in 2000, I'd buy a cellphone for $79 ~ $129 and it'd last 4+ years, and now its $1200 (iPhone X) for about 18-22 months.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 23-Oct-17 22:27