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.
Yes, definitely agreed. Sometimes I use the slider to change margins or the color wheel because it is nice to finely tweak the value over a smooth range. I also like the scaffolding for creating a copy of a template or style, but then I hand delete 90% of the bloat and just keep what I need.
Animations in Blend for Visual Studio is just about the only thing the editor is used extensively when we have an animation heavy component to the app. It's actually pretty fantastic in terms of how easy it is to make great animations but the markup it produces is god awful, so we tuck away animated stuff into its own controls and only edit it with Blend.
I've recently been writing one app natively on all platforms. I wrote it as a winform. Then i converted it to Android. That was very easy. Next, I decided to write it as a UWP Universal Windows Platform app. Pain. Agony. XAML.
Now, I'm writing it as an iPhone app.
Anyways, the other painful thing about the UWP XAML thing is that you literally "type your user interface" and all the editing takes up tons of space vertically on the screen. it's such a pain. And slow.
Converting an app from Winforms would be a lot of work because MVVM/XAML is a completely different paradigm. It's only really suitable for a new development written ground up the way you have to write MVVM/XAML apps. It also has a huge learning curve, much like HTML/CSS - I hated it at first too, and it takes a long time before you get comfortable enough with it to write code that you can look at and say "ah, what a work of beauty"...but when you get there, it becomes indispensable and you never want to go back to procedural UI layout.
I have a fairly old box by today's standards and I have yet to experience slowness on VS2015. What are you using?? I also have resharper going and that takes up a whole lot of system resources on its own and still no problems.
I never understood developers that would hold out upgrading memory or to an SSD to be able to use more powerful tools. Whats $300 or $400 extra to save you hours and hours of building an app?
XAML tools used to be a bit slow but since VS2013 service pack something, I haven't had any such issues.
I don't know what you mean by "it makes a lot of assumptions" - can you explain?
The editor used to be horribly buggy. That hasn't been the case for a very long time now though, perhaps it would be worth re-evaluating
A lot of what I said is also dependent on the kind of development you do. The apps we build now have DPI-independent full custom designs. Whatever a designer can design in Illustrator we need to be able to translate easily into an interface, and XAML makes it sooooo easy.
If you are building more standard apps then the learning curve might not be worth making the transition, but I will say that once you get over the learning curve you never want to use anything else again.
I switched from MFC/C++ and C# to iOS and never want to go back. This crappy resource editing and bloated XAML is pain in the ass. The class library from Apple are simple and they work. No fizzling around some messie bugs and annoying errors.
It is hard to start, but when know enough you write mean and clean code. And it works on all systems, no big and bloaty setups with errors.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
To each their own I guess. I don't think XAML is bloated if written properly, and I'm extremely anal about XAML being written cleanly. We write XAML by hand, not using the editor. Anytime XAML seems bloated we refactor or find a way to reduce the clutter and keep it clean. This is just one example:
Resources are great - they are like CSS styles for controls. If you use the editor then yeah it's a bad experience and you will get TONS of bloat. The editor should be there for only 3 things - scaffolding a template or a style for you that you then hand modify and place where you actually need, having a live view of the changes you are making in the XAML by hand, or playing with property values like margins or color live so you can tweak them just right by sliding your mouse on a slider or color wheel instead of typing, deleting, typing, deleting, etc.
Do you use IB or code to build your iOS interfaces? I'm assuming code, as most iOS devs quickly drop IB (us included) because of how bad it is.
You lose something special when you build interfaces in code instead of a declarative language with a live updating view. For mobile apps it can be argued that the interfaces are simple enough that it doesn't make much of a difference but I tend to disagree. I would also *strongly* disagree that hand written XAML is bloated compared to the code required to build up an interface.
I wrote interfaces with code 10 years ago and in my opinion it's a huge step backwards. HTML/CSS and XAML are a much better way of representing an interface.
We just did an evaluation of XCode 8 by updating one of our apps in the last few days and besides a few hiccups that we had to manually fix, it has been soooo much better so far...so a lot of what I said doesn't apply anymore. That was kind of odd timing with my post lol.
Interface builder has become way more usable now, I think I can say I even like it.
I am a kernel dev, 18 years on windows, 3 on linux, and you are right in one respect:
My list of tools:
1) Windbg on Windows. Extraordinary debugger. More power than you know what to do with. ON linux, kgdb + debugger that came with compiiler. Dont know if Eclipse works as a debugger, and dont know if the problem setting kernel breakpoints was because it was an ARM11 system I was debugging or not. Building unoptimised code in linux has do be done source file at a time with pragmas. No over all 'debug build' of driver.
2) Code editing. VS versus GEdit. Actually I find the two similar. I dont use autocomplete anyway so no big difference here.
3) Code browsing. VS Browse vs CodeQuery. Being able to jump to definitions AND implementations in the linux kernel is of course nice, so its a point to linux here.
So its an even score, but the power of Windbg is extraordinary. I know many linux kernel devs who printk debug. If they ever tried Windbg they would never be happy with such a crude process again.
Oh yeah, Windbg is great, saved me a few times from tearing my hair out I've never done kernel dev though so I can't comment on your last point.
Low level development is an entirely different beast than what I've been doing for the last 10 years. I loved doing that kind of work back in the day, but besides some embedded C++ stuff for MQX RTOS, it just isn't the kind of work my clientele is looking for.
Went from SQL Server to Oracle. Screams of agony ensued. Went from Microsoft Office to OpenOffice and later LibreOffice. That didn't go so well. Went from Visual Studio to Notepad. Actually that worked a lot faster
Visual Studio is a great tool, but sometimes it does too much and my computer is a few years old. I'm starting up VS now so I can get to work in five minutes The minimum install used to be 6GB, 'nuff said
If Microsoft does something right it's development tools
Visual Studio is a bit bloated, but that's part of its beauty in a way. Everything is just there and easy to find. The only other tools I need to do 99% of my dev work are Resharper and XAML Styler.
I'll gladly spend a few hundred bucks on system upgrades to run a more productive environment where everything is just there and easily accessible when I need it, but I can definitely see why that's a turn off for a lot of people.
Possibly. There are so many unused items installed by default that this is possibly the reason. For instance I recently installed Xamarin and was appalled at how much junk it brought with it. That must slow things down. I also find that team server definitely has an impact on speed. I yearn for VS2008 which I believe was the last version not to include all the bloat.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
Have you guys ever heard of a company doing a contract to hire, and them making the employee (once hired) take a severe pay-cut? I never heard of this practice until moving to California, but considering the whole reason contract to hire is to make easier on the employer to get rid of people they don't like (try before you buy) I've never seen a company try to short change a person's take home pay simply because they now want to hire him/her and give them benefits.
The reality is, is they don't. The people take the jobs to solve their short term unemployment problem and then immediately start looking for a job that pays them market or better. I was in that exact situation a long time ago. I was making a major life change at the time so I took the job hoping that they would sweeten the deal after some time. When I gave notice that I got another offer for 33% more, it was only right then that they discovered that, miraculously, they suddenly had that in the budget if I would stay.