Coffeehouse Thread

7 posts

WPF moving forward

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    I need to work on UI for a little program and am wondering what choices in terms of UI you are making. I have used MahApps and like the toolkit which was the first to use uppercase menu's before Visual Studio 2012.

    I know Bas or someone posted recent suggesting a alternate WPF framework, does anyone know what it is? Are you happy with the metro look, and would you use it in a WPF forms over data application?

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Depends on what app you want to make. Business desktop app should be just using WPF with clean styling. Desktop media app should be using WPF with heavier style template. And if you are making a metro app, definitely going for touch focused metro style. follow podder example since you can dramatically change the GUI without changing anything underneath.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    exoteric

    Some pretty important WPF performance updates just landed in .NET 4.5. I hope WPF performance updates keep comming because they can make or break some application scenarios. That update came many years after the initial launch of WPF though.

    Our application is a code viewer and here we find that a "plain old (highly optimized) browser" is actually a great environment in terms of rendering performance and graphics flexibility. On the other hand, the more structured environment of .NET and WPF was appealing so we choose that. Had we been able to easily embed something like WebKit into the application we might have gone down that road.

    There is a pretty sophisticated open-source WPF editor framework called Avalon - but in terms of flexibility with speed I still see the browser as being ahead of the game (but maybe I'm wrong, I'm still new to WPF). Obviously Visual Studio has a pretty performant WPF-based editor.

    Since you've basically told nothing about what your little program does and what its UI requirements are, it's pretty hard to recommend anything.

    As for using upper-case menu labels, I kind of fail to see the technical superiority of that but I guess you mean to imply that they were hip for doing it.

    For simple applications I see nothing wrong with WinForms.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    @exoteric: My bosses computer is running XP, so I had to go back to .NET 4.0 as XP does not run .NET 4.5.

    I wouldn't even venture to suggest that we don't support XP, because I know what the answer will be. The app is a typical forms over data application, and is the effort of 3 guys. Lots of forms and database stuff. Typically before people did what Office was doing i.e. use a Ribbon, but that is old fashioned now

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , vesuvius wrote

    I wouldn't even venture to suggest that we don't support XP, because I know what the answer will be.

    You're not doing your company a service by encouraging them to stay on an OS that is not supported, is less secure and for which new products increasingly don't work on.

    The longer you leave it, the harder the upgrade path will be.

    That said, I've never upgraded past .NET 2.0 (never seen any features beyond that that I want), so I'm one to talk Smiley

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    That said, I've never upgraded past .NET 2.0 (never seen any features beyond that that I want), so I'm one to talk Smiley

    No features that you want? Really? I'm having to do quite a bit of Java nowadays and coding without LINQ feels like trying to ice skate with sandpaper tied to your feet. Wink

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Sven Groot wrote

    No features that you want? Really? I'm having to do quite a bit of Java nowadays and coding without LINQ feels like trying to ice skate with sandpaper tied to your feet. Wink

    I might not have LINQ, but that doesn't mean I don't have functional programming. I use my own library with functional extensions to IEnumerable<T> (which I wrote before LINQ was ever made), so I can still write stuff like System.IO.File.ReadAllLines("foo.txt").Map(x => int.Parse(x)).FIlter(y => y > 1).Sum(), and I can do it all from .NET 2.0.

    I agree with you about Java though. So much stuff in Java is just really dumb. You can do it, but it's painful - like properties ( get_foo(), set_foo() ), delegates ( a whole damn class implements IRunnable ), generics which aren't really generic, no lambdas, no pinvokes etc. Java always feels to me like a poor man's C#.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.