4 ms·
Collections in Java are awful. Guava helps a bit, but it's still poor man's substitute. No LINQ, no lambdas (and the upcoming Java streams API is ugly as well),
by V-2 13y ago
Collections in Java are awful. Guava helps a bit, but it's still poor man's substitute. No LINQ, no lambdas (and the upcoming Java streams API is ugly as well), no delegates, no events. Verbosity. C# is a very nice language, only WPF sucks big time.
- wslh 13y agoI forgot LINQ! I think nobody is using WPF for new project? I like that UI application feels native in C#/Windows.
- saw-lau 13y agoJust started using WPF for a home project here. :-)
- stinos 13y agoUsed WPF a couple of times, not that bad at all? What exactly do you think can be improved? Are there alternatives to it?
- et1337 13y agoFor me, WPF isn't the problem. I love MVVM, data binding, etc. The problem is XAML. More like FML, amirite?
- stinos 13y agomyeah it's a bit messy sometimes. But I yet have to encounter an UI design system that isn't? (ok, didn't try that many, and for example Labview is pretty nice since it gives you a working GUI with tons of features in no time, but for backend it's a disaster)
- dnissley 13y agoBasic binding works wonderfully, and the MVVM pattern is a good idea, but it just doesn't seem to work that well in practice. Some basic things seem overly difficult to do. I feel like there's a WPF way of doing things, but there is no reference for what that is. For example: I had a DataGrid, and I was trying to figure out how to respond to the KeyUp event on a specific row, but only when it was the Delete key. I ended up having to create a custom dependency property in order to do that. 80 lines of code and a new class with 7 members later, I was able to reference that in my view and connect it to a method in my viewmodel. It works, but my lord it took me hours of googling and trying different things out for what seems like should be very simple functionality.
- dfkf 13y agoXAML is the awful part of WPF. The reasoning behind it is understandable, but this whole "declarative ui" thing brings with itself a whole bunch of abstractions, like resource dictionaries, styles etc, that you wouldn't need if you do your ui in code. And sometimes code-only wpf is the only way to get good performance from it.
- _random_ 13y agoStill much, much better than HTML. Or, how I love WPF containers... Have to deal with the ugly div-row-span hack that is BootStrap at the moment.
- tomlu 13y agoHere are two things: * It can be really clumsy to get programmatic hold of anonymous controls like buttons inside of list items * Styling is clumsy
- V-2 13y agoSee http://stackoverflow.com/a/4120034/168719 http://stackoverflow.com/a/4120034/168719 - that's the highest rated answer for the question "What is the simplest way to bind a group of 3 radiobuttons to a property of type int for values 1, 2, or 3?" Do I really need to say more :) Or http://blog.wouldbetheologian.com/2009/07/why-wpf-databinding-is-awful-technology.html http://blog.wouldbetheologian.com/2009/07/why-wpf-databindin... or http://paulstovell.com/blog/six-years-of-wpf http://paulstovell.com/blog/six-years-of-wpf - he also raises an important point: WPF never made any significant progress. I'm under impression that I've once seen a better article that sums it all up (consistently with my own experience), but I can't find it now, so these will have to do
- _random_ 13y agoIt's quite good. Very well suited for the job of creating enterprise apps, also good for other desktop apps. Let's you build a typical grids-and-fields GUI much quicker and with much less pain than "modern" HTML-JS-MVC hackiness.