Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


irascian irascian Irascible Ian
  • Mike Swanson - Adobe Illustrator to XAML converter

    Larsenal wrote:
    I haven't used Coreldraw in years.  Anyone else besides leighsword really like it?

    I'm still using Corel Draw 10.

    I can't really draw but find it enables me to do enough to export something to Photoshop which I can then use to make it look half-decent. The fonts and clip-art alone made it worth the purchase price.

    But each new release after Corel 5 seemed to offer less and less (they even stopped giving you the clipart 'hard copy' book after Corel 8) and yet the cost and machine requirements went up and up more so I stopped at Corel 10.

    I've had Illustrator since version 8 (currently on CS2) but I can't get on with it - I find Corel much easier. I keep meaning to invest the time in Illustrator to make proper use of it but somehow the time never seems to happen.
  • Longhorn (heart) RSS

    Will be watching the video later this evening but already I see some folks are very upset about the whole thing:

  • Ken Levy, XML Tools in VS 2005

    Harlequin wrote:

    I'm glad I didn't talk my company into XmlSpy licenses, they're quite pricey now anyways...

    Tell me about it! And to add insult to injury their new release schedule is very aggressive and usually involves an "upgrade" price that is almost as much as the full price.

    Nice to see some decent competition at long last.
  • Rick Laplante - Talking about Visual Studio Team System, Part I

    Great news for the individual consultant on Team Server pricing here. I know precise details haven't been fleshed out yet, but it's great to know Microsoft are looking at the issue.

    Thanks for listening!
  • Pablo Fernicola (and others) - An hour with the Avalon Team

    Beer28 wrote:
    I'd challenge Scoble's comment about it being easier with xaml than with other tools.

    You might want to check out the CTP of ZAM 3D

  • Tony Goodhew - The path to Orcas, (future Visual Studio), studying the market research

    Lwatson wrote:
    I for one can't see the new stuff come in fast enough. My one issue with the new is how to deploy to something that only now, got the old. (How can I justify to my clients that the need exists for a rollout of the 2.0 framework when they only recently got the 1.1 framework and all its patches in place, is one example.)

    By and large the new stuff coming in the next VS and perhaps the one to come after that on the surface appear to be pointed at coding style rather than methodology. Doing things with generics or partial classes rather than learning a whole new language and api. The framework is still there, there is just some new stuff along with it. Some if the NEW stuff is really compiler tricks (ie Partial Classes) not really new paragigms for development. Really now the .Net framework and the C# language is approaching 5 years in the wild now. I hardly think that its been radically changing overnight.

    Well to be honest, I think that a lot of the stuff (like generics, like a designer that doesn't screw up your HTML and generates XHTML) should have been in a first cut of the product. Look at the pain that's been caused with DDA etc through Microsoft bringing VS.Net to market without thinking through all the issues - too obsessed with rushing out new "cool stuff" instead of fixing the basics first. New stuff is fine but Microsoft seem happy to flood us with new stuff and then abandon it after a few short months usually the day we've deployed it to production. Remember IDC/HTC before ASP? Remember their first rush to do XML schema's (obsoleted a year later) SOAP, WSE, AJAX (correct me if I'm wrong but we seem to have had ADC then RDC and then XML Data Islands all trying to do the same thing and all pretty much broken on first release) Get the basics sorted out first instead of obsessing over being cool.

    Some examples: Who in the world ever thought that a designer that screwed up your HTML was a good idea? and why has it taken so long to fix? Why do so many of the class libraries break Microsoft's own programming guidelines and are now having to be replaced? How can we have a "we bet the company on it" product that even in its second incarnation shows up some pretty fundamental flaws within minutes of using it: Try knocking up a form with a text-box label that is right-aligned in a bold font and marvel at how the font gets truncated mid-character on the right regardless of the video driver you're using - this is pretty basic functionality! I would argue that basic bugs like this arise because of the obsession with delivering gimmicky "new" functionality that doesn't actually work instead of focussing on the basics that most of us need to deliver solid, performant and reliable solutions.

    Of course if I were a rather naive student with no real job to worry about then I'd probably be raving about cool new stuff and complaining about old farts working in the real world too Wink

    Visual Studio Team System is, from what I've seen, a good example of this rush to deliver stuff without properly thinking through the requirements. At the roadshow day it was scary how often in answer to a question (the event was attended by IT professionals not over-enthusiastic students!) the answer invariably appeared to be "We'll be looking at that in the release after the next one" (ie the THIRD release) - we're talking pretty basic requirements - and that's several months before even the first retail release is out the door! In the meantime we'll no doubt spend the first few years of release 1 and release 2 battling our way around incomplete products, appalling bugs or lapses in functionality, getting up to speed with things that just don't work waiting for the version that should have been released to come out. It's such an unproductive waste of time.

    I remember the time wasted writing my own web farm session management, trying to work around all the bugs in MDAC that stopped ADC or RDC working - pain and long, long wasted hours that could have been saved with just a bit of thought about what the real world requirements were.

    OK, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here (as evidenced by the fact I've been playing with Beta 1 and am downloading Beta 2 as I type) but attitudes like that of dotnetjunkie, to me, smack of naive hobbyist rather than realistic IT professional. It was frightening how many times the answer to some pretty basic questions at the recent VSTS roadshow seemed to be NOT that it would be in the retail releas, or even in the next release after that, but in the release after that. And in the meantime we'll have to jump through all the same time-wasting hoops, learning and unlearning tricks that wouldn't be necessary if someone just said "What is that the business NEEDS for this to work?"
  • Tony Goodhew - The path to Orcas, (future Visual Studio), studying the market research

    dotnetjunkie wrote:
    Maybe you're just getting old gman?
    Yeah, you really represent a minority with your thoughts, you make me think of that TV show "Grumpy old men".

    Personally, I feel that things should go faster! Innovation is key in our business, and look at how long it took Microsoft to come up with an update to VS.NET 2003!! That leaves us more than time enough to learn all the new stuff.  Oh, how I wish that Avalon was here already...

    edit: after reading your message once again I honestly believe that you should think about retiring! Man you sound depressed, I pity the people for whom you have to write software!!! How on earth can you deliver good work if you're not able to stay up to date? You would sell people old technology! Please, if you're not able to keep up to speed, let other people take over and give a new turn to your life instead of blaming Microsoft!!!

    Way too harsh!

    If I had a dollar for every time I've been involved in trying to rescue a mess of a project that's arisen as a result of enthusiastic young things who are only interested in learning the latest cool stuff at the most rudimentary level, keen to rush onto the next before they've had any kind of depth in what they're doing, I'd be a millionaire by now.

    Yes, things need to move forward but too often it seems that it's just change for change's sake, and the MTV generation seem to have the attention span of a newt! Too much is being rushed out without being properly thought through - hence the constant re-engineering, when it should have been done properly in the first place if a bit of thought had gone into the process instead of this obsession with being "cool". Net result stronger developers have to pick up the pieces in delayed projects or complete failures (over 65% of software projects are regarded as a failure the last I heard).
  • Scott Guthrie - Demo of next version of ASP.NET (Happy Birthday Video #1)

    Thanks Scott. I'm excited again now Smiley

    I've been reading that b and i are deprecataed and should be avoided for some time now and certainly worked in several shops where it's been explained to me that b and i are semantically meaningless where strong and em aren't and are better supported by JAWS (I haven't got JAWS installed so have no idea of the truth of this) - hence my assumption they should not be used.

    I've actually got radio buttons working inside grid controls although the code is pretty hacky involving the usual inheritance and some rather shady work with client-side ids.

    As a final note I guess my big request here is I hope the documentation for the controls and/or the intellisense documents these new features. Ideally we need a one-to-one mapping between server control attributes and the HTML they generate, which has always been seriously lacking up to now. When trying to make the datagrid more DDA-compliant I found four pages of advice on google groups (yeah, yeah I know!) telling me that the datagrid didn't support th generation from header elements with reply after reply saying "use the repeater instead - it's the only way" before I hit the ASP.NET 1.1 rollout fix solution on page 5 of the results list, with its mention of the new attribute (I don't have the fix details to hand but I think it was "UseAccessibility=true"). The hotfix note claiming this made the datagrid compliant mentioned nothing about "summary" (only "caption") so I ended up with my own control inheriting from datagrid that overwrites the "render" method, and traps write element and write attribute events so that when a table element is being output it sets a flag and then that flag causes the attribute render event to do an AddAttribute for the missing "summary" tag.  I guess I'll be reworking that hack on Monday Wink

    We've used a similar technique to remove invalid attributes (that appear to not even be used anyway) on the validation summary control so if there's any attributes there that might help remove those hacks we'd be interested to hear of them, or where the best place for finding out where some of this stuff is documented.

    Anyway, thanks again. The answers given here and in the other thread have helped resolve issues that have been troubling developes at several shops I've worked at for some time.  I'm looking forward to getting the beta 2 to do some hand on myself later this month.
  • Scott Guthrie - Demo of next version of ASP.NET (Happy Birthday Video #1)

    On the subject of Accessibility it was noticeable on the free training for C# ASP.NET 2.0 CD that Ken Getz and his company put out that server side controls were generating deprecated 'b' tags instead of the semantic 'strong' tag encouraged for use in screen readers.

    Is this fixed in beta 2?

    If not, will it be fixed in the release?

    We took a lot of pain with accessibility on datagrid. Even the ASP.NET 1.1 Rollout fix that claimed compliance with accessibility legislation only fixed the problem with header tags being generated as tds and added a caption property - the required table 'summary' property was not included and trying to get label for working with radio buttons in a data grid - well let's not go there. Is this sort of issue going to be fixed in Whidby?