3 ms·
My 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 ext
by venomsnake 13y ago
My 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).