|
Mike Hankey wrote: I've really gotten to love WPF
You mean there are two of us? 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I am in a similar position, except it is one of the requirements of my new job.
I have been using Murach's ASP.Net 4, and O'Reilly "CSS The Missing Manual"
The ASP book does a good job on that.
The CSS book covers HTML and CSS.
Both of them and do a really good job as far as I am concerned.
They both include Sample code and examples on each item they cover.
They will be excellent Reference Books as I progress.
MS WinForms are OK too. They just don't use them where I am working.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
I understand. There is a screen capture I want to share. When I figure out how to do that, I'll update.
I'm okay with the coding details, but I am at a much higher level with my question. Without the picture I'll just blabber on.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool. I'll be on the lookout for when you get that done, and help if I can.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
See update 
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: back when it was just html.
 Well, as you know, the web has taken over and there are a few more client-side layers (css, javascript/typescript, jquery) in today's web applications.
I still prefer to use asp.net webforms since many of the apps migrated from classic asp, and I'm used to it. It really depends on your team though.
One thing that can really help is getting yourself/team a good suite of UI components. The good one's aren't exactly cheap but it's a case of getting what you pay for.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
As well I know, frankly it's daunting.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
modified 27-Jul-22 6:42am.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post and my thanks sir.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dang, great link. Thank you.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know of such a diagram, but if you're looking to move it to today, WinForms is a no go in my opinion.
WinForms is great, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly modern.
WPF would be a better choice, but... Still no.
When I'm thinking modern, I'm thinking scalable (as in UI), which WinForms does not do, but WPF does; and multi-platform, which neither WinForms and WPF do.
So the first thing that comes to mind for desktop apps is something like Electron | Build cross-platform desktop apps with JavaScript, HTML, and CSS.[^].
Visual Studio Code was built in Electron, to give you an idea of what it can do.
Electron is not a Microsoft product though, and it gives you all of the headaches of JavaScript, HTML and CSS, although you can use TypeScript as well.
Another brand new Microsoft alternative is .NET MAUI: What is .NET MAUI? - .NET MAUI | Microsoft Docs[^].
.NET MAUI is kind of the replacement of Xamarin and UWP (Universal Windows Platform) if I'm not mistaken.
So this also works on your Android and iOS devices, but also Linux!
When you're aiming for the web and Microsoft, you're probably looking at a .NET Core Web App (with .NET 6).
This gives you a Razor Pages app.
For the same sort of app, but using MVC instead of Razor Pages, use the .NET Core Web App (Model-View-Controller) template instead.
Both are fine and give you a modern Microsoft web framework.
Personally I prefer Razor Pages for its simplicity.
You could go for a Blazor app as well, which allows you to run C# in the front-end, instead of JavaScript, and uses SignalR by default, allowing you to create real-time web applications.
When you need both web and desktop/phone, you'd best create an API using .NET Core Web API, which is very much like the Web App.
Microsoft has done a great job in bringing API and web app development together, in my opinion.
You can then use the Web API from your .NET MAUI app and you web app.
Hosting is up to you of course, but Azure is a great choice for whatever you pick, if you want to go full out modern and move to the cloud 
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
There's the UNO platform as well. MS should just work together with them instead of having MAUI separately.
|
|
|
|
|
Good one, although I don't know UNO myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of having to use react/angular/typescript/etc, MS should come up with a way to transpile c# to javascript. I would personally love that...
".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
|
|
|
|
|
I always wondered why TypeScript isn't more like C#.
someVar: string;? Really? Why not just string someVar;, like we're used to.
I think TypeScript could've been a subset of C#, with all the same syntax.
It would look more like C# and more like JavaScript, but noooo... 
There's probably a good reason for it though.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh, the pascal style... Probably Anders giving a throwback to being the Delphi Chief Architect... LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't Blazor supposed to be C# for the front end?
|
|
|
|
|
we illustrate my point. What I am trying to understand.
I'll follow up. Maybe I'll post my first article after 20 some years.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander,
Other than your bait posts, this helps . Here's the issue:
"Another brand new Microsoft alternative is .NET MAUI: What is .NET MAUI? - .NET MAUI | Microsoft Docs[^].
.NET MAUI is kind of the replacement of Xamarin and UWP (Universal Windows Platform) if I'm not mistaken.
So this also works on your Android and iOS devices, but also Linux!"
I appreciate the suggestion, but that looks like com, com+, com, active, hey let's make more stuff up and see if it sticks.
Microsoft is trying to control their pile of cheese via the UI and they are being left behind. With all of the control packages out there, do we really need Windows? I digress
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Windows 10 and later, I believe that UWP is the way to go. You get a nice modern look and a nice modern API.
But if you want a chart of all the UI technologies that MS has ever offered, you're gonna need a bigger machine
Paul Sanders.
If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter - Blaise Pascal.
Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul - I appreciate the suggestion, I just have to reinforce my apprehension and indecision. Don't worry, I'll get over it. Rather than ask you to explain, I did some basic searches. One area of my interest is Multiplatform support. Given:
- an overwhelming number of web toolkits out there...
- bandwidth is increasing...
I can see an obvious trend to network-centric applications. Note - I did not say the web.
So I want out to google, that source of unlimited, unbiased information  and searched "how portable is uwp" and one of the first links that came back is "is windows uwp dead?" I have more confidence in international standards groups as compared to
I've spent the last 20 years of my life trying to understand Microsoft tech, esp from the embedded side, and I have nothing kind to say. For all you old farts out there - com, com+, DCOM and lets go to the next marketing cycle. I actually wonder if Microsoft has a therapy program for their managers when they screw their customers over, because ooo shiny.
Just an observation.
as for "But if you want a chart of all the UI technologies that MS has ever offered, you're gonna need a bigger machine"
Microsoft is just part of the picture. I mainly code in C++ and if I need something ui - mfc. Why Mfc? Because I just need to do something, and I don't have to worry about this that and the other. That's for this customer.
Microsoft is trying to stay relevant. Maybe? I see no visionary guiding the ship. I said above, I live in the embedded world (last 15+ years in Windows CE and WEC7). Microsoft's support has been a catastrophe. The oems I'm working with have conceded the UI space to linux and a web based interface - hence my interest in more non-microsoft solutions.
But data is data.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want your app to run on more than one platform then that's a whole different ball game. If not, MS are doing great things with UWP - increasingly, the apps bundled with W11 (including the new settings app) are written that way and they look really nice.
Paul Sanders.
If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter - Blaise Pascal.
Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
So, the context of my question revolves around SyncFusion. Since I am a small developer shop with income < 5 million, I qualify for a free license for their entire tool set. I want to pick up some of this technology just to learn something new. So, I go out to their web site and see this: The Set[^]
It's a little daunting as to where to pick a starting point. I'll check out the other comments, all of which are very useful and appreciated.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
