Silverlight 2 Tutorials from ScottGu | The Coffeehouse

littleguru
<3 Seattle

blowdart wrote:

blowdart wrote:

Ah I've complained before about developers never learning.

Then again I viewed

ManagedInformationCard.GetSignedXmlForCard() is coupled with 47 different types from 19 different namespaces.

ManagedInformationCard.GetSignedXmlForCard() has a cyclomatic complexity of 27.

with some sort of weird pride. So I can't talk really

Will it ever be used?

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

littleguru wrote:

blowdart wrote:

blowdart wrote:

Ah I've complained before about developers never learning.

Then again I viewed

ManagedInformationCard.GetSignedXmlForCard() is coupled with 47 different types from 19 different namespaces.

ManagedInformationCard.GetSignedXmlForCard() has a cyclomatic complexity of 27.

with some sort of weird pride. So I can't talk really

Will it ever be used?

Oh yes, by an actual customer as of last week

irascian
Irascible Ian

KevinB wrote:

I know this next phrase will probably p*ss you off irascian, but seriously, how many other people in charge of the amount of people and products that Scott is and the pressure that that would put on your time would take time (prob his own personal) to come on to a forum and answer a complaint. You have to respect that at least.

Kevin

Why would it p me off? And who said I didn't respect it?

I wish people here would read what I've written instead of continually criticising me for things I HAVEN'T said.

I guess the real "lesson learnt" here is that people (me especially) need to understand that Scott's blog is his personal blog and that he's not (necessarily) speaking for MS on that blog.

Speaking personally, I think it's time for me to move on from C9. I'm actually having far more of the sorts of conversations I'd hoped to experience here in "face-to-face" community meetings and on Twitter. The continued friction and negativity I seem to be bringing to this place isn't much fun for any of us.

Closing thought for MS Developers: "Start each day with a smile and get it over with" Wink

littleguru
<3 Seattle

The problem was, at least that's what I felt, that you came over kind of rude. I mean:

... (particularly what looks suspiciously like the unheralded altering of a blog entry after the event) is the most disappointing Microsoft experience I've had in a LONG time! Shame on you, sir!

I wonder if you would have worded it in that way if you would have been in a face-to-face meeting with Scott Wink

Rossj

LG I suspect it would be harsher in person.

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

Rossj wrote:
LG I suspect it would be harsher in person.

You mean slapping each other with white silk gloves and a proper duel? Pistons or fencing would you think?

I'd hope for swords at sunrise, because it's nicely alliterative and conjures a better image than the clichéd pistols at dawn.

KevinB

irascian wrote:

Why would it p me off?

Because you have written things like :

"We have a community that says "Isn't it great that Scott blogs, and does tutorials, and gets his laptop out at every opportunity". But this is someone with how many people reporting into him? With responsibility for how many products? Shouldn't someone else be writing tutorials (and getting a second person to verify them)?"

Which would lead me to believe that you are sick of people pulling out the excuse that he is just a normal guy that goes the extra mile to help people. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

irascian wrote:

And who said I didn't respect it?

This, I don't apologise for, if you spoke to me in a face to face meeting with the tone that you used in a few of the posts here, I would defintiely take it as a mark of disrespect. That said, it is completely relative and just opinion really, so we can agree to disagree on that one.

irascian wrote:

I wish people here would read what I've written instead of continually criticising me for things I HAVEN'T said.

I did read what you said, for about 3 days actually before commenting on anything you had written, if I misinterpreted what you are saying then I all I can do is apologies, but I don't think I did tbh...

Kevin

scottgu

>>>>>>>>> Scott, there's no easy way to say this: I think this is disingenious to say the least! THE HIGHLIGHTED PARAGRAPHS ABOVE APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ADDED VERY RECENTLY. I know because I have a print out I made of all the tutorials I was working from. The paragraphs you've highlighted above are NOT there on ANY of the tutorials I have printed out! In addition the download shows dlls dated 8th March - some time after the tutorials were launched before MIX08.

The tutorials were origionally pubished before MIX and before anyone had access to the bits.

In the origional tutorials I said that I would be posting the completed source files for download once the actual Silverlight 2 bits were available (if you have printouts check the very first overall blog post page that linked to the 8 tutorials - I believe this text is near the bottom of it).

Silverlight 2 Beta1 shipped on March 5th (a Wed). I believe I posted the .zip completed samples and updated the tutrorials to link to it a few days later. March 8th (a Saturday) might have been the date I posted them - since that matches the date on the files uploaded as you pointed out above.

I have not updated the tutorials since then, so the text has been consistent the last 2-3 weeks. Nothing has been changed behind the scenes because of this thread.

I am going to try and make the download links even more apparent, though, and will fix 1-2 screenshots that are out of date with the final sample source code in the days ahead to avoid any future confusion.

Scott

eagle

Thanks for stopping by Scott....

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

He's an excellent stoper that Scott. Many's the day I've seen him out a'stoping early in the morning.

Actually, stoping sounds like it should be the sort of activity undertaken by men with beards who live in cabins.

<needless stirring>

Regarding "realizing that Scott's blog is personal and he's not the mouthpiece of MS", it ain't gonna happen. It would be nice if you could make people realize your true intentions, but you have to cope with the fact that they're going to interpret Scott's blog however they feel like. If people see it as a source of Authority (which many will and probably do) then the content therein should be at least checked. Lest (and I think I get bonus points for using the word Lest) MS's reputation be damaged by releasing documentation which is flawed.

Scott's blog is in the public domain, and carries a certain amount of status. People are going to believe that it's "official MS" content regardless of whether it is or not. So either stamp "NOT OFFICIAL, BETAS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE" over everything (and run the risk that many people are still going to treat it as gospel), or take this as an opportunity to push out official content in an informal manner, and get the content checked for correctness.

I don't want to put the many MS bloggers off, they're often useful sources of information. But people are people, and whether or not this is your personal pet project; if they're treating it as the word of god, then you need to accept that and try to meet the standards that implies, or not provide content that can be misinterpreted.

But what do I know, I haven't even read most of these tutorials. Cool

</needless stirring>

irascian
Irascible Ian

scottgu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Scott, there's no easy way to say this: I think this is disingenious to say the least! THE HIGHLIGHTED PARAGRAPHS ABOVE APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ADDED VERY RECENTLY. I know because I have a print out I made of all the tutorials I was working from. The paragraphs you've highlighted above are NOT there on ANY of the tutorials I have printed out! In addition the download shows dlls dated 8th March - some time after the tutorials were launched before MIX08.

The tutorials were origionally pubished before MIX and before anyone had access to the bits.

In the origional tutorials I said that I would be posting the completed source files for download once the actual Silverlight 2 bits were available (if you have printouts check the very first overall blog post page that linked to the 8 tutorials - I believe this text is near the bottom of it).

Silverlight 2 Beta1 shipped on March 5th (a Wed). I believe I posted the .zip completed samples and updated the tutrorials to link to it a few days later. March 8th (a Saturday) might have been the date I posted them - since that matches the date on the files uploaded as you pointed out above.

I have not updated the tutorials since then, so the text has been consistent the last 2-3 weeks. Nothing has been changed behind the scenes because of this thread.

I am going to try and make the download links even more apparent, though, and will fix 1-2 screenshots that are out of date with the final sample source code in the days ahead to avoid any future confusion.

Scott

Thanks for the response.

In fact the downloadable source code doesn't help because it's for a completed solution at the end of tutorial 8. The problems around Tutorial 3 and Tutorial 4 if you look at the comments section to your blog entry are all around the datagrid/disappearing design view when external style elements are used. By the time you get to the end of the tutorials (which is what the downloadable source code is for) the datagrid is long gone - replaced with something else in a later tutorial.

I see no real point in debating this further. I'll speak to folks at the UK Silverlight UG and try and get a feel for how externalised styles and the datagrid are supposed to work and why the tutorial as published is not giving the "expected" results.