Comments on: Ars Technica on the .NET Framework http://blog.stevex.net/2008/05/ars-technica-on-the-net-framework/ Software development and other notes. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:03:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: stevex http://blog.stevex.net/2008/05/ars-technica-on-the-net-framework/comment-page-1/#comment-364858 stevex Tue, 27 May 2008 04:07:52 +0000 http://blog.stevex.net/index.php/2008/05/06/ars-technica-on-the-net-framework/#comment-364858 Ah you're right. I wonder why I thought it was 64 bit. At least 64 bit integers are a built-in type so there's no combining of 32 bit values to do. Ah you’re right. I wonder why I thought it was 64 bit. At least 64 bit integers are a built-in type so there’s no combining of 32 bit values to do.

]]> By: zproxy http://blog.stevex.net/2008/05/ars-technica-on-the-net-framework/comment-page-1/#comment-364230 zproxy Mon, 26 May 2008 06:09:46 +0000 http://blog.stevex.net/index.php/2008/05/06/ars-technica-on-the-net-framework/#comment-364230 >> All integers in .NET are 64 bit, and there’s no futzing to do to get the 64 bit size of a file. No it isn't. You have int64 as long, int32 as int, int16 as short, int8 as byte all of which have their corresponding opcodes to work with. >> All integers in .NET are 64 bit, and there’s no futzing to do to get the 64 bit size of a file.

No it isn’t. You have int64 as long, int32 as int, int16 as short, int8 as byte all of which have their corresponding opcodes to work with.

]]> By: Scott Williams http://blog.stevex.net/2008/05/ars-technica-on-the-net-framework/comment-page-1/#comment-351551 Scott Williams Tue, 06 May 2008 14:25:00 +0000 http://blog.stevex.net/index.php/2008/05/06/ars-technica-on-the-net-framework/#comment-351551 WPF is alright, and arguably better than Windows Forms, but I do have some gripes with it. I haven't spent a ton of time with it, so take these criticisms with a grain of salt. 1) XAML - just feels too bloated. If it were only markup for layout, similar to HTML it would be great. But they shoehorned styling and animation events and things like that into it. 2) Expression Blend & VS 2008. The text editor in Expression sucks, and the WYSIWYG editor in VS 2008 isn't that great, so you're constantly switching back and forth. Plus Blend is UGLY. This is more of a criticism of the tools, but considering how tightly integrated they are, I feel it's legitimate. 3) Too many ways to do the same thing. You can use WPF nearly the same way you use WinForms, which makes it kind of confusing when going over someone else's code. In my opinion, they should have just made a clean break and thrown away the WinForms mindset. Ultimately, I think that WPF has the potential to be great, but it still seems a little half-baked. WPF is alright, and arguably better than Windows Forms, but I do have some gripes with it. I haven’t spent a ton of time with it, so take these criticisms with a grain of salt.

1) XAML – just feels too bloated. If it were only markup for layout, similar to HTML it would be great. But they shoehorned styling and animation events and things like that into it.

2) Expression Blend & VS 2008. The text editor in Expression sucks, and the WYSIWYG editor in VS 2008 isn’t that great, so you’re constantly switching back and forth. Plus Blend is UGLY. This is more of a criticism of the tools, but considering how tightly integrated they are, I feel it’s legitimate.

3) Too many ways to do the same thing. You can use WPF nearly the same way you use WinForms, which makes it kind of confusing when going over someone else’s code. In my opinion, they should have just made a clean break and thrown away the WinForms mindset.

Ultimately, I think that WPF has the potential to be great, but it still seems a little half-baked.

]]>