|
I both agree, and sympathise!
Examples are the best didactic method invented.
"Help files" without them are rendered "Hindrance files".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've looked at that one, but I can't afford to buy things nowadays, except my operating system and ASP.NET, of course. Iy's just what I want, but I will have to make do with a free one off the web with lesser function.
Thanks for your nice comment.
|
|
|
|
|
xiecsuk wrote: I'm 68, retired now, and trying to learn ASP.NET, MVC3, EF Code First and C# at home on my own. I wrote my first program in 1962-3, in what language I can't remember, and I have been programming on and off ever since. But I find that the modern frameworks and languages appear to be much more complicated in some ways than they need to be, but so much easier to use in others. Take EF Code First, for example. I think that is a wonderful piece of work.
Wow, and I thought I was an old codger! I've been at this since around 1976. You've REALLY been 'round the block!
My take on the original question is this: pick whichever technology that suits your purpose and become highly proficient with it. Learn multiple technologies, sure, if you NEED to. In my case I found that building my own SIMPLE library around ADO.Net to get at SQL Server is all I need to develop my commercial applications. They're blindingly fast and my coding is consistent from one module to another. Sure, there exist tons of other ways I *could* do it and if I was just trying to pad my resume with a lot of terminology I might do that - but I'm focused on building a product, not on being able to rattle off a list of technologies that I "know".
What I'm interested in hearing is "Wow" coming from my clients when they see how elegant and fast and ACCURATE the application I just wrote for them is. I don't think any of them care what tool (how old or new) I used was to craft their application. Who cares that I wrote the whole thing in assembly? <grin> (Actually it's all in C# but you get my drift!)
True craftsmen are more focused on the output of their tools than they are on constantly having the latest and coolest tools to impress their friends. I figure that with VS2008, SQL Server and Active Reports (my main tools) I'll be able to continue to craft stuff for many years that can run in many places. I'm off the upgrade train with my tools for now. I got code to write. Later!
-Max 
|
|
|
|
|
Max Peck wrote: VS2008, SQL Server and Active Reports
.  Those are the tools I use too! I also wrote my own orm tool and dal library (similiar to Subsonic, but works with Access dbs too).
- S
50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
Code, follow, or get out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
I am really impressed with Active Reports 6. I have a little bit of exposure to Crystal Reports and found the Visual Studio integration of AR6 to be outstanding. It was customizable so I could boilerplate things the way I prefer to do it and, baby, does it ever work!
-Max
|
|
|
|
|
I love ActiveReports! Hasn't been a case yet I can't handle, since I can do everything in code when I need to. The deal breaker with Crystal Reports for me was getting the damn thing installed on clients computers (that, and the sh*tty interface, and...well you know...). No problem with Active Reports - only 2-3 dlls included in your setup script, and wham bam thank you ma'am, you're done! Posted a rant about it awhile back, when I was more coherent.  http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=3322855#xx3322855xx[^]
- S
50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
Code, follow, or get out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve,
Agree completely. AR6 was worth every penny I paid for it. My design philosophy is to keep things as simple as possible and AR6 fit in to that perfectly. I'm impressed with the functionality that's built in to the report viewer and how the whole thing just works in to the Visual Studio environment in general. It really is designed the way a reports system should be, IMHO. With the "click once" deployment in Visual Studio the whole thing delivers to the target and just works. Best system I've seen in a long time. When we start selling my application to small businesses, my deployment group isn't going to have too long a list of things to do to set it up. I love it.
I almost went with a copy of VS2008 Professional because of the built-in Crystal Reports. Fortunately I was able (through a friend) to obtain a student version for evaluation. The designer included in the VS version of Crystal absolutely sucked. If it had come with the designer that it does with XTAL 11 Pro or something I might have gone that way at the time but then after seeing how AR6 integrated into the design environment with standard CS class modules working like any other custom control ... then the usefulness of the fully-integrated designer and the classy looking viewer - I was done. Worth paying for. So I just kept VS2008 Standard and turned it into a "Pro" version with AR6. Between those and SQL Server 2008 Express the application has turned out far better than I'd hoped without breaking my bank in the process.
-Max
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree with you more. I developed a library of routines using VB when I was contracting, that allowed me to code quickly and accurately. I also made sure the permies I was working with adopted my techniques. That meant that we could quickly and easily update each others code to add new function, and maintain them quickly if the need arose. It also meant that you became very proficient in their use. I remember one client I had just started to work for asked me to look at some code that was extracting data out of an Oracle database of 23 million, yes million, records. It was taking over 24 hours to calculate an aggregated monthly figure. After 30 minutes experimentation, I had it running and giving an answer in 5 minutes. I remained at that company as a contractor for the next 7 years and wrote them around 15 business critical systems that saved them hundreds of thousands of pounds over that time. One system I wrote saved them around 25 thousand pounds per month in penalty payments.
Still, that's enough of me bragging; the World Snooker final is about to start it's final session.
|
|
|
|
|
> Just for sh*ts and giggles I did my last project, a web application with about 10
> pages and 6 database tables all using my ADO.Net DataAccessLibrary that I wrote 8
> years ago and standard ASP.Net.
Out of curiosity what kind of Unit Testing did you provide with that?
-Rd
Hit any user to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
None. I have never done any unit testing. I test my methods as I code and have actual users do user acceptance testing. We also have a project manager write up a test plan with users. I've never done any unit testing, nor do I plan on it in the near future.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
|
|
|
|
|
ToddHileHoffer wrote: None. I have never done any unit testing. I test my methods as I code and have actual users do user acceptance testing. We also have a project manager write up a test plan with users. I've never done any unit testing, nor do I plan on it in the near future.
That's what I figured, and that's fine.
The reason I asked is that I feel you'd probably find those the usefulness of various different frameworks is driven by the variety of things you want to do. If you are churning out roughly the same type of app in roughly the same way, if you aren't looking at Automated Unit Tests or Automated Acceptance Tests then yes, you'll work quite happily with the same tools you've used for years.
If you try to move into those other areas you'll find you hit limitations in your toolset, and you'll find that some of those other frameworks have something to offer.
So, by all means keep doing what works for you, but don't dismiss the tools and frameworks that you don't use. It may be that they solve a problem that you are not faced with.
Best of luck
-Richard
Hit any user to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
What is really frustrating is that by the time I get around to finally learning and implementing a particular framework or technology Microsoft is already on to the next one. When I find bugs or issues in the existing framework the attitude is one of "why are you still using that?" instead of "we'll fix it." They are moving too fast and leaving many developers who are doing more complex projects with longer lifecycles behind.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running VS 2008, BTW, as it's the last full version I have (of course, I have the Express versions for 2010.)
It seems that the only projects that I am allowed are:
- Console App
- Library
- Tutorial
I am also allowed to add in the item:
- Source
- Script
- Signature
Is this all I'm supposed to have?
I'm trying to figure out what's the point in having this new language if you can't really do anything with it! 
|
|
|
|
|
First, stop whining. Second, go here[^].
F# was never made an integral part of VS2008 because, back then, it was still a toy to play with, a CTP. You weren't meant to write entire apps in the thing!
Hell, you don't get a template for an F# Windows Forms app in VS2010 Ultimate! It's still pretty much a toy. The most I've used it was to work on Project Euler problems, none of which required the use of forms.
Though, you can still probably just manually add the refences and write all the code to add the controls yourself. Designer support isn't available, unless, of course, you either find or build a project template (at the very least!)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so right now it is a toy. But then why is Micro$oft pushing it so much? Are they planning to release F# as a true development language in the next Visual Studio release? Perhaps they will replace Visual Basic with Visual F#? If that's the case, maybe I'll play with it in anticipation of that.
|
|
|
|
|
swampwiz wrote: Perhaps they will replace Visual Basic with Visual F#?
I can't see them ditching VB anytime soon. There sell far too many visual studio packages to VB users so way too profiatable to dump. Also, most of their hard work is already done - once they have developed new goodies for new versions, it doesn't generally cost a great deal to add in VB support.
|
|
|
|
|
They're not ditching VB.NET and replacing it with anything.
F#'s strength is in dealing with sets of data. You can use it to build libraries of processing units to handle your apps data more quickly and efficiently than you can in non-functional languages.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so F# is really only designed to work as a data Library component. Perhaps it is well suited to building some type of specialized data structure for situations in which using SQL Server would not be appropriate? That would make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
If you must whine about some product's failings then please do so in the appropriate place[^].
The best things in life are not things.
|
|
|
|
|
While C# and VB.Net are roughly equivalent and great for building a variety of different types of apps, libraries, services etc, F# is a specific type of language for functional programming (FP).
You're coming at it from the wrong angle if you think of F# as being equivalent to VB.Net. It's not intended to do the same job.
I think most people would envisage F# being used to implemented specific bits of logic in a functional manner, using VB.Net or C# as a front end.
Pretty much every problem can be solved without resorting to Functional programming, but if you are working with certain types of problems the use of FP can provide startling improvments (less code...cleaner simpler more logical solutions)
Even if you see an opportunity to use FP, you will probably find you can do what you need using FP features of C# rather than resort to F#.
Forget about F# for now, look into FP in general. The whole paradigm might not even be worth your while. I find it facinating but I've yet to find a use for it in my projects. I'm sure I will though.
Like a lot of things, even if you never use FP, it will change the way you think about your procedural code, so it's worth a look.
F# will never replace VB.Net.
A more likely scenario is that C# will expand to provide all the Functional Programming Goodness and there won't be a need for a separate language. FP could represent a splitting point between C# and VB.Net because I really don't see much point trying to shoehorn FP into VB.Net. Most attempts to do so lead to UGLY UGLY syntax.
I don't want to start a war of words here, but as a very long term BASIC>VB>VB.NET developer, I've switched to C# and I won't ever go back. I should have switched a long time ago.
-Rd
Hit any user to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I have a folder called OTRS Ticketing system which is developed using Perl. I need to open the perl files in design mode so that i can make any changes in design layout . Is there any Perl IDE for opening & changing design layout.
I downloaded Editplus, Komodo but all are one we can view code and make changes in code. But not able to see as design view.
How to do this. Any suggestion for Perl development tool which we can use for opening perl files in design mode.
Anybody knows, please reply.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to ask in a Perl forum/site.
sr159 wrote: I need to open the perl files in design mode so that i can make any changes in
design layout
And why exactly do you think you "need" to do that?
I suspect Perl isn't doesn't fit that as nicely as something like C# does.
I would also suspect that perl created without that idiom isn't going to be well suited to such a use even if something supports it.
|
|
|
|
|
I am building a diagramming tool that will import an SVG as background and then create a network like diagram on top of it.
The objects that i will be using to draw diagram will also be SVG files.
So I would like to know whether the WPF is the way to go or something else?
Bharat
|
|
|
|
|
If you are comparing WPF(Xaml) to Windows Forms (GDI+) I'd go the WPF route. Don't quote me but Xaml is a subset of SVG, GDI+ is not. Another option would be Silverlight which is also Xaml based.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
