• Darren (unregistered)

    Apropos of Jessica's report, I once had a user report problems with Excel performance. Turns out they were doing what amounted to 'SELECT * FROM *' and dumping the results into Excel so they could filter it.

  • (nodebb)

    Some of the code was written using Entity Framework for database access, much of it is not.

    Right, tools down, I'm out the door. Either I'm allowed to refactor the code to be entirely consistent or that one red flag is just too big to ignore.

  • Richard Brantley (unregistered)

    And we're not going to talk about getting a DbContext instance just to extract its connection string so we can use it to create a SqlConnection object? I've seen roundabouts before, but that's a new one.

  • matt (unregistered)

    Criteria is plural. You can have that criterion or those criteria, but not that criteria.

  • Gumjpy Gus (unregistered)

    I a while back worked as a consultant to a company whose whole business was run with like 400 programs of this ilk. Worse yet, their hardware and disks were totally obsolete, they were having to buy new disks on eBay every few months and there were no updates for their OS or database. The code was written by two mostly-clueless guys that learned programming from one of those yellow-cover books, "Learn xxxxx in 48 hours". They never got toA he chapter where they learned about "procedures" or "functions", not at all.

    After two weeks I just mentioned in passing to the company president how their code was like 20 times longer than it had to be. Next morning my door entry card didn't work and it turned out I was silently terminated. About once a week I wonder how things went.

  • (nodebb)

    Microsoft is still adding features to Winforms

  • (nodebb) in reply to Richard Brantley

    I had to do something similar once, but it was because one particular module needed a Connection with a specific parameter added to the connection string, not to recreate the wheel as-is.

  • mihi (unregistered)

    I would not consider Winforms a WTF. It is still an easy way to do native Win32 apps, i.e. apps with native Win32 widgets (are there any better ones beside C++/MFC or doing native <windows.h> in C?).

    If you said they were still using VB6, or FoxPro or Delphi 5, I would agree it to be a WTF. Those UI frameworks really behave badly on anything newer than XP, while WinForms even supports the fancy taskbar features of Win10/Win11.

  • Chris (unregistered)

    Looks like typical code from a government agency. Except ours is VB.NET, not C#.

  • PedanticRobot (unregistered)

    I'll give up WinForms as soon as Microsoft makes something better, and as long as they're obsessed with XAML, that's not going to happen. It was enough work moving over a decades worth of custom controls and working software from Framework to Core. Rewriting everything in some other framework just isn't worth it. Even with new software, the amount of experience and knowledge around WinForms makes it a solid choice as most problems have been solved, even niche esoteric ones probably have a blog post, git issue, or article somewhere on the net discussing how to deal with them. I dare say, within C#/DotNet, there is no better GUI framework than WinForms.

  • Your Name (unregistered)

    What PedanticRobot said. If they'd ever get WinForms ported to use without Win32, e.g. a decent GUI editor, not faffing around with XML, and have it on every major OS, it could be a winner.

  • erffrfez (unregistered) in reply to matt

    so should it be "criteria ARE plural."? ;-P

  • (nodebb) in reply to erffrfez

    Nope. They were referring to the word criteria not the criteria themselves. The WORD criteria is plural. ;)

  • SomeVBGuy (unregistered)

    Hey, don't diss Windows Forms, that's what I learnt in school 25 years ago, and that's what I plan retiring on 20 years from now.

  • (nodebb)

    That plan worked for the COBOL generation. Then they got to be HPCs pulled from retirement when Y2K came along. You just need some WinForms crisis to erupt about 2050. Good luck! Seriously, not snarkily.

Leave a comment on “Copy of a Copy of a”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #683408:

« Return to Article