>Stick with it and join us in the land of WPF nirvana. +1 On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM, nos <[email protected]> wrote:
> I spent many years working in the WinForms world but a few years ago I > transitioned to WPF. In the last three years I’ve never considered writing a > WinForms application if WPF is an option. I find WPF to be far more > productive for any of the application I write – that ranges from > mickey-mouse home projects, simple CRUD apps and full blown multi-tier > enterprise apps. In my opinion WPF is the clear winner over WinForms in > every one of these cases – both in terms of productivity and potential > capabilities. > > > > In terms of whether it’s difficult to learn? There certainly is a change of > mindset that I personally found frustrating until I was forced into the deep > end writing a commercial app full time. Then there is the normal initial > “where is the xyz property”, or “damn I could do this so easy in WinForms” – > but that’s just part of picking up on any new technology that overlaps a > previous one. Is it as hard as learning Win32 programming with MFC – hell > no! Is it as difficult as wrapping your head around objective-C and Cocoa on > the Mac – no way! > > > > Sure it easy to create a differentiating UX in WPF than it was in WinForms > (writing customized highly performant controls in WinForms was really hard > work). Its true also that having a great UX makes an app so much more > marketable. However, even an internal battleship gray CRUD app is easier to > write in WPF than WinForms (in main due to the vastly improved data-binding > and the oh-so-wonderous DataTemplates). The only area that WPF really loses > out on is the third party control eco-system – but give them time (does > anyone remember how terrible the earily WinForms third party controls > were?). > > > > I was kinda surprised by this thread that so many people seemed to think > WPF was too hard or unproductive. Then again perhaps I shouldn’t have been. > After all look how long it’s taken people to move away from VB6 (to .NET or > other). Most of the stragglers used exactly those same arguments comparing > VB6 to .NET. > > > > I’m lucky enough to be working for a company that only considers WPF and > Silverlight for Windows desktop applications. Our clients *expect* us to > be using those technologies – and yes on some apps we get to work with > dedicated UX designers to produce some very pretty – but even more > importantly – highly usable apps. > > > > I certainly hope that those on this list with lingering doubts about WPF > keep striving to get over that initial learning curve. Should you give up? > No way – don’t be weak – there are rewards waiting for you on the other > side. Stick with it and join us in the land of WPF nirvana. :-p > > > > *Nigel Spencer* > > http://blog.spencen.com > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > *On Behalf Of *Winston Pang > *Sent:* Friday, October 15, 2010 9:06 PM > *To:* ozWPF > *Subject:* Re: Should I give up? > > > > It's such a mix debate around who wants a WPF app over a WinForms app. > Certainly at times I love going back to WinForms to make my test harness, > and going back to the days where I draw my controls out through code, sure > was fun back then, but now, damn, it feels great to not have to sit down and > do some maths on measuring my dimensions and placement for custom controls. > > With WPF it's really easy to make rich custom controls, but it also comes > with a price, the visual tree sure becomes fat, but so damn easy. > > At my current work place, maybe all our clients are very superficial or we > tend to push it out a lot, but there's one WPF application we rolled out, it > sure was a little bitch to get done, but one of our very first kicks into > the WPF world as far as large applications are concerned, and it was pretty > much similar to an AutoCAD system, you might think, holy crap AutoCAD > systems, even the plans have a million lines and shapes whatever it might > be, it's a kill to use WPF, should use WinForms and focus on perf. Well that > client in particular was very into visuals and animations and really wanted > the application to shine. I wouldn't know how you'd have that happen with > WinForms, but it will be a bitch to do, to make it so rich. > > Another project we're currently working on is with a large waste disposal > company, and the IT manager is also interested in focus on UI and visuals, > at first I thought it might be an over kill, but like many has mentioned > humans like looks, and especially with some companies having systems that > all users use for 8+hours a day, you'd at least want them to smile when a > screen looks nice or things transition so nicely. Think about iPhones, when > you take the UI off it, it's actually nothing out of the ordinary, but > because the visuals are so nice, transitions are so consistent, it becomes > so pleasant just flicking between screens. > > Furthermore, I think a rich visual experience does help with people who > aren't as literate, like they say a picture is worth a thousand words, I > think the combinations of layout and visuals can also communicate the use of > a system without many words on a screen. > > I think this thread discussion isn't ever going to end, because there are > opinions on both ends, and to date it really is a combination of factors: > > a) does the developer think it's worth it to use WPF to make pretty UIs, > thus resulting a push to recommend to their clients > b) when should it really be used, does an app with two screens constitute > to using it? > > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Price <[email protected]> > wrote: > > People have come to expect a richer experience. I'm sure if you could > install windows 3.1 onto todays hardware you'd be so impressed with > the speed things run... but would you do it? > > I think of all the times I've installed some tool or app and noticed > an outdated UI and decided that I don't really need it, and > uninstalled. It's standard UI knowledge that the acceptance of an > application (especially in corporate environment) can make or break > it's actual usage. If people don't like it they will do everything in > their power to not use it. The user's perception of an app has little > to do with if it actually does the job or not. (sure it's a component) > Looking and feeling good is a driving force of human nature. It's not > survival of the fittest, its survival of the prettiest!! > > WPF can deliver that desired look. People want round corners and > gradients, and gratuitous animations. People want modern looking > homes. If you go out and find an old house made of brown brick with > floral curtains and carpet and retro decor... well, it may sell but > not for as much. > > Good looking UI/UX gets an emotional reaction from people, which is a > very powerful driving force. Actually bad UI does too but not the > desired emotions. I guess users are shallow, it's all about the looks. > No one wants a Fat app! :) > > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Greg Keogh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why should anyone write an app in WPF? > > > > > > > > Serious question. If you have to create an app that looks beautiful with > > gradients, shadows, smooth moving parts, menus containing videos, grids > with > > complex template cells ... then WPF is the only choice. Is there any > other > > compelling reason to use WPF to write a desktop app that doesn’t need > such > > beauty? > > > > > > > > Since Framework 3.0 was released I've had a single job offer to write a > UI > > that had to be "beautiful". We did a demo, then the project was canned > and > > they finished up doing it in a browser with Google Web Toolkit (and it > looks > > impressive, in the Google Mail page style, but fancier). Every other > desktop > > app I’ve had to write needed absolutely nothing that WPF provides and it > > would have wasted time and money to use anything other than WinForms. > > > > > > > > WinForms apps might arguably be a bit “dull”, but more importantly, they > > have a standard appearance. I strive to use standard menus, toolbar, > status > > bar, icons, shortcuts, etc, and WinForms encourages me to do the right > > thing. WPF tempts you to write something strange and non-standard, which > is > > fine if that’s what you want, but if not? > > > > > > > > So even though I’m greatly impressed by what you can do with WPF, it > takes > > much longer to write anything with it, and most business apps requested > of > > me don’t gain anything. So why should anyone write an app in WPF if they > > don’t have to? > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > P.S. Maybe in some future thread I can explain the reasons why I am so > > unproductive in WPF, XAML, type converters and infrastructure. Perhaps > > people will be able to point out ways of overcoming my speed bumps. I’m > not > > unfamiliar with WPF, I’m just slower with it. > > > > > > > > P.S. A few weeks ago I did actually start writing a significant app in > WPF, > > by deliberate choice, even though the app doesn’t technically need any > WPF > > features. We’re converting a VB6 app to .NET in stages. Progress is > slower > > than it would be in WinForms of course, but it will be interesting to see > > what benefits result. There is a risk that we will use fancy visual > effects > > just because we can, and I wonder if other people fall for that trap. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ozwpf mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ozwpf mailing list > [email protected] > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf > > > > _______________________________________________ > ozwpf mailing list > [email protected] > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf > > -- Miguel A. Madero Reyes www.miguelmadero.com (blog) [email protected]
_______________________________________________ ozwpf mailing list [email protected] http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf
