5 ms·
I'm mainly a web developer, so I'm biased towards that stance, but I've had to work on LoB programs in web (mvc), winforms, and wpf. Winforms was the worse. I
by jmcqk6 13y ago
I'm mainly a web developer, so I'm biased towards that stance, but I've had to work on LoB programs in web (mvc), winforms, and wpf. Winforms was the worse. I hope I never have to work with one again. WPF was a lot better than winforms.
But it still couldn't compare with the simplicity of the web. It could have been because I was trying to write a WPF app that acted like the web app. WPF can be nice, and it's definitely nicer than winforms, but web apps are so incredibly simple that I really don't see an advantage. Especially when you consider deployment issues (WPF you need to keep deployments synchronized etc. Web app => single deployment and done).
- venomsnake 13y agoMy experience is exactly the opposite - winforms were a joy to use, and I barely had any success with WPF. But I had a lot of experience with MFC which were extremely close to winforms.
- Spearchucker 13y agoAgreed. I do a lot of graph visualization and find the immediate rendering model of GDI a lot easier to work with. Also, WinForms is an object-oriented UI, which just makes more sense in my head than the XAML/document/delayed rendering model. But this is just my personal preference.
- Pxtl 13y agoImho, WinForms had a lot of nasty bugs and counterintuitive messes - the databinding thing was clumsy, and the tabular data control has a lot of warts. But still, there was a lot to like in the simplicity of OOP Widgets.
- ygra 13y agoAt least there was databinding and it worked (more or less; but binding a complete database row to a window was easy and worked well – having to hand-hold the framework in where to put values and how to write them back is quite painful in comparison).