Comments on: To .Net or Not to .Net http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/ Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:08:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Richard http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Richard Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:34:11 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-340 The talk about how third party components address lackings in Microsoft products and the lack of a multiselect treeview reminds me of what I used to do before I became a game programmer. My first job out of university back in 2000 was web programming, specifically ASP pages running within Microsoft's web server IIS. There were lackings in the functionality available, the case in point for me was sending an email. It was such a basic functionality that seemed applicable to a wide range of situations. Yet, in order to do it, you needed to license a third party component. It wasn't the only basic functionality missing either. The impression I was left with was that Microsoft intentionally left gaps in functionality and did not fill them, in order to seed a third party component market. This intention (or giving the benefit of the doubt oversight) is really to their detriment. With a variety of tools at the ready disposal of a programmer, it facilitates the creation of better products and that makes the tool used to make them look better. In any case, nine years later, it is interesting to know that people are still thinking: "If we are going to be paying for a development environment and UI toolkit then it either needs killer support or it needs to be open source so we can fix it ourselves" The talk about how third party components address lackings in Microsoft products and the lack of a multiselect treeview reminds me of what I used to do before I became a game programmer. My first job out of university back in 2000 was web programming, specifically ASP pages running within Microsoft’s web server IIS.

There were lackings in the functionality available, the case in point for me was sending an email. It was such a basic functionality that seemed applicable to a wide range of situations. Yet, in order to do it, you needed to license a third party component. It wasn’t the only basic functionality missing either.

The impression I was left with was that Microsoft intentionally left gaps in functionality and did not fill them, in order to seed a third party component market. This intention (or giving the benefit of the doubt oversight) is really to their detriment. With a variety of tools at the ready disposal of a programmer, it facilitates the creation of better products and that makes the tool used to make them look better.

In any case, nine years later, it is interesting to know that people are still thinking: “If we are going to be paying for a development environment and UI toolkit then it either needs killer support or it needs to be open source so we can fix it ourselves”

]]> By: Geoff Evans http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-339 Geoff Evans Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:48:38 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-339 > It became clear in your responses to the comments what the context was but I would have liked to see it in the post itself. I see, that makes perfect sense :) Thanks again for the feedback. Cheers, > It became clear in your responses to the comments what the context was but I would have liked to see it in the post itself.

I see, that makes perfect sense :) Thanks again for the feedback.

Cheers,

]]> By: Ben http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-338 Ben Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:43:08 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-338 @Geoff. Gak! I hate it when my brain outpaces my fingers. It should have read: "were using an older (although certainly not old) version of WinForms and that you have NOT tried to CREATE TOOLS IN the newer versions." Sorry for the confusion/appalling grammar. I realize it is an opinion piece and it certainly made me sit up and think because 1) I run a tools team using .NET and 2) I have a LOT of respect for Insomniac (your games, your tech and your attitude to sharing). I would have liked more context such as the versions of WinForms and .Net that you were using. It became clear in your responses to the comments what the context was but I would have liked to see it in the post itself. All in all, keep up the good work, we need more places to talk about how to make tools. @Geoff. Gak! I hate it when my brain outpaces my fingers. It should have read:
“were using an older (although certainly not old) version of WinForms and that you have NOT tried to CREATE TOOLS IN the newer versions.”
Sorry for the confusion/appalling grammar.

I realize it is an opinion piece and it certainly made me sit up and think because 1) I run a tools team using .NET and 2) I have a LOT of respect for Insomniac (your games, your tech and your attitude to sharing). I would have liked more context such as the versions of WinForms and .Net that you were using. It became clear in your responses to the comments what the context was but I would have liked to see it in the post itself.

All in all, keep up the good work, we need more places to talk about how to make tools.

]]> By: Geoff Evans http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-337 Geoff Evans Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:27:56 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-337 > but in reading the comments it comes clear that you were using an older (although certainly not old) version of WinForms and that you have tried to the newer versions. I think you may be missing a key word there... it doesn't quite seem like a complete thought. Thank you for the frank feedback. What do you feel is disingenuous about it? I was definitely trying to be candid. My motive was to enumerate why we (Insomniac) decided to move away from .NET/WinForms since people were immediately interested in the comments to my previous post. I guess I am not seeing where I got off track. Perhaps its just a misleading title? Perhaps the title implies the article was more even handed that it is? It would be hard to do so because so many different studios have different requirements and approaches. It is an opinion piece, but perhaps I need to figure out a way to make that more clear within the context of this blog. Thanks again Ben, > but in reading the comments it comes clear that you were using an older (although certainly not old) version of WinForms and that you have tried to the newer versions.

I think you may be missing a key word there… it doesn’t quite seem like a complete thought.

Thank you for the frank feedback. What do you feel is disingenuous about it? I was definitely trying to be candid. My motive was to enumerate why we (Insomniac) decided to move away from .NET/WinForms since people were immediately interested in the comments to my previous post. I guess I am not seeing where I got off track. Perhaps its just a misleading title? Perhaps the title implies the article was more even handed that it is? It would be hard to do so because so many different studios have different requirements and approaches. It is an opinion piece, but perhaps I need to figure out a way to make that more clear within the context of this blog.

Thanks again Ben,

]]> By: Ben http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-336 Ben Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:10:57 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-336 @VadimP. I couldn't agree more :) Regardless of their friendliness the UIs we've made are relatively complex and written using the form designer in VS2005. @VadimP. I couldn’t agree more :)
Regardless of their friendliness the UIs we’ve made are relatively complex and written using the form designer in VS2005.

]]> By: Vadim P. http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-335 Vadim P. Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:07:50 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-335 Complex UI's are one thing. User-friendly ones are a totally different one however :) Complex UI’s are one thing. User-friendly ones are a totally different one however :)

]]> By: Ben http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-334 Ben Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:03:21 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-334 Geoff, I think you are being slightly disingenuous in this post. It reads well, and is certainly good flame bait, but in reading the comments it comes clear that you were using an older (although certainly not old) version of WinForms and that you have tried to the newer versions. I work on a team that has successfully used VS2005 with .NET 2.0 to produce a number of relatively complex UIs. Good job in getting lots of comments and discussion, less good job on giving good context. Geoff, I think you are being slightly disingenuous in this post. It reads well, and is certainly good flame bait, but in reading the comments it comes clear that you were using an older (although certainly not old) version of WinForms and that you have tried to the newer versions.

I work on a team that has successfully used VS2005 with .NET 2.0 to produce a number of relatively complex UIs.

Good job in getting lots of comments and discussion, less good job on giving good context.

]]> By: eksith http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-333 eksith Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:29:58 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-333 @Joy vxWidgets was originally called wxWindows and has been around since 1992. It's hardly "new". And C# has been around since 2000, making it nearly a decade old. BTW... I can't be sure if your comment was legitimate ignorance or a cleverly disguised spam link. @Joy

vxWidgets was originally called wxWindows and has been around since 1992. It’s hardly “new”.
And C# has been around since 2000, making it nearly a decade old.

BTW… I can’t be sure if your comment was legitimate ignorance or a cleverly disguised spam link.

]]> By: Joy http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-332 Joy Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:58:02 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-332 What is wxWidgets? I hear of a new programming language every other day. I do hope there are capable people backing these technologies. What is wxWidgets? I hear of a new programming language every other day. I do hope there are capable people backing these technologies.

]]> By: Geoff Evans http://thetoolsmiths.org/2009/01/31/to-net-or-not-to-net/comment-page-1/#comment-331 Geoff Evans Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:06:44 +0000 http://toolssig.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-331 > Though, one thing that makes wxWidgets better than Qt is that it doesn’t need another preprocessor which makes setting up the build environment and system a lot easier. This is huge IMO. I hate anything other than the compiler parsing my source. We have a parsing system for our game data and almost everyone hates it with a passion. I hear GCC is going to be working on a plugin API, which would be cool. It would just be a matter of Qt (or our system) having a plugin that dumps meta-data directly out of GCC. > Though, one thing that makes wxWidgets better than Qt is that it doesn’t need another preprocessor which makes setting up the build environment and system a lot easier.

This is huge IMO. I hate anything other than the compiler parsing my source. We have a parsing system for our game data and almost everyone hates it with a passion. I hear GCC is going to be working on a plugin API, which would be cool. It would just be a matter of Qt (or our system) having a plugin that dumps meta-data directly out of GCC.

]]>