I've been working on a project called Axial that converts MSIL (compiled C# or VB.NET) to JavaScript. There are a few samples of working code, but some common situations don't work properly. (The current release doesn't work in production mode and the SVN code doesn't work in debug mode but is much cleaner.) I've heard from quite a few people that they hate writing JavaScript, so I know the project has some merit, but I'd guess that attitude is less prevalent among the SO community.
Assume the product works perfectly and smoothly, so your JavaScript works 100% of the time and a Visual Studio plug-in makes sure you're using the product correctly. Is this something you or your organization would use? What features other than straight code translation would interest you?
That sounds very much like a .NET-centric version of GWT. I guess the questions are:
Have I understood the purpose correctly?
Do you believe you can overcome any roadblocks that GWT users might stumble over?
Is there enough benefit in having a .NET version as well as GWT to make the duplication of effort worthwhile? (I'd personally just write the Java code and use GWT, but I know not all .NET developers know Java, and you may already have common library stuff you want to port.)
Do you have any useful ideas you could contribute to GWT? :)
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but haven't used GWT myself.)
Been done (pretty much).
Related
Did anyone has the comparison between these two libraries (Combres2 and SquishIt)? If one library is better than another one, I also want to know the reason for that.
I found the article said that Combres2 has a better compression than SquishIt. But it is almost a year ago.
http://blog.buzzuti.com/post/Combres-vs-SquishIt-e28093-A-battle-of-Minification-Combiner-and-Squishing-in-generale280a6.aspx
One thing to make note of is that SquishIt works in a different manner than Combres2, so it isn't a simple who produces better minified code.
SquishIt works very nicely with T4MVC, which you won't get with Combres2. On this basis alone I'd tell anyone to use SquishIt. Additionally, SquishIt is not xml config file based, which allows for a lot of flexibility. In fact, you could theoretically make an xml config file and mimic Combres2 if you really desired it.
In terms of minification SquishIt is actively developed, which means that if new methods to minify scripts are created you'll be more likely able to leverage that as well. Currently it supports JSMin, YUI, MS Ajax Minifier, Closure Minifier, or even no minifier.
Update 1/18/2012: There are now many other alternatives out there aside from SquishIt and Combres2. For starters, Microsoft is creating there own system for the next release of ASP.NET 4.5. Cassette, similar to SquishIt, and RequestReduce, which is quite different than anything else by automagically doing everything for you.
I'm a fan of SquishIt.. even though Combres and SquishIt both (optionally) use the YuiCompressor.NET library (which I am biased, for ;-) )
Being a fan of Justin Etheredge, I recommend/use SquishIt.
The reasons to one library is better than the other (for me) is if the final result is NOT a break code and still working.
I have test and working with the Microsoft Ajax Minifier, and I assure you that is working absolute correct - can even minifie the jQuery library with out any issue.
http://ajaxmin.codeplex.com/
http://aspnet.codeplex.com/releases/view/40584
documentaion:
http://www.asp.net/ajaxlibrary/AjaxMinDocumentation.ashx
Now if a library is one year old this have nothing to do, because they just working on javascript code that have some standards some years now.
To point again out : the better is the one that product minimum code that is still working under very complex javascript functions like the one jQuery have.
One note:a minified library can minified a full set of files at ones, do not try to minified one by one and them add them to a single file, this is not working.
This is meant as an answer to the 'Microsoft Ajax Minifier' recommendation, and a general warning for those that do so. As my reputation is a mere 41, I cannot add the comment there, where it should go. :(
For our team, the native C# VS2017 Microsoft compression (which may or may not be the same as the one labeled as 'Microsoft Ajax Minifier') failed on the css function 'calc', and badly.
That was a bit tricky to track down, since the error (obviously) only occurs during minification. And since we were minifying based on environment (interwoven with Release, Debug), that meant the calc bug (by default) never appeared on local. It just magically appeared when we pushed to production... and only on pages that used the calc function.
(Definitely agree that minimum code add-on is fantastic. But the native minifier can be faulty. So proceed with caution.)
If you are not using 'calc' (and you are noticing no other issues), then likely your team is fine with the default minification tool.
And of course, Microsoft could have fixed the bug since we discovered it. But bug reporting through msdn doesn't always lead to resolution of the issue. :(
There may be other issues. But in our case (since we use 'calc'), that was sufficient to have us investigate other minifiers, and SquishIt has been our team's choice. We had not looked at Compres2 at that time. Up until now, we've been very happy with SquishIt.
Side note: I'm in the middle of investigating minifiers again because of some sort of 'collision' between jQuery 3.6.0 and SquishIt for VS2017. (with no 'collision' between jQuery 3.4.1 and SquishIt, VS2017). Early stages of problem-solving process.
Best wishes and happy coding,
Michael M.
I'm planning to start a web based stock and current managament project.
I want app to be Ajax but I don't want to spend my time for client-side code.
Thus, I think to use coolite for my presentation layer.
However, before starting project I want to hear some advices about it.
Is it worth using in a big project and do you have any other advice about this issue?
This would be much better asked on the Coolite forums where you'll hear from actual users of the framework rather than people who will just knock it because it's not jQuery (sigh). IMHO, it is a pretty solid framework -- however, I've never used it in a production app. You really should spend some time evaluating it yourself -- take a day and mess around with their samples and see if you can build something simple. Ultimately only you can decide if it will work for your needs.
I'm yet to come across a javascript to asp net framework that isn't full of bugs. I'm in the process of an application rewrite and I'm ripping out the ajax frameworks and just using jquery.
I've found it simple to code, fast to run and easy to bug fix.
I can't comment on Coolite, but for my 10c I'd suggest just learning jQuery.
Way back when Coolite first came out I tried it and wasn't impressed and it ties you down somewhat so I just use Ext with .NET pure, a bit more work but will save you in the long run I think and keep you flexible to changes in both frameworks.
We have a flex based UI whose functionality (eg: login, logout) needs to be tested periodically in IE 7. Manual testing takes a lot of time and hence we want to automate it.
EDIT: We dont have the source code of this app uder test so cannot use something like FlexUnit. Is there a way to automate this testing?
I have heard of FleXmonkey, but have read negative reviews of it and hence wary of trying it.
EDIT: source of negative review:
Automated testing of FLEX based applications
(Comment by Ryan H)
Please suggest if theres a way to go about it.
EDIT: An open-source solution is preferred.
Thank you.
You won't get very far in your development adventures if you avoid reviewing things just because you read negative reviews. ( Please provide a source for said negative reviews ). I've also read bad things about Flex and Flash Builder and the Flash Player. Yet, you still ended up using Flex?
That said, I strongly suggest checking out Flex Monkey.
RIATest is another option.
I believe you can also do this sort of testing with QTP. I couldn't find a specific source for QTP info, but there are a few links if you google.
http://www.learnqtp.com/does-quicktest-professional-support-flashadobe-flex-applications/
http://vishnuagrawal.blogspot.com/2009/04/flex-automation-testing-with-qtp.html
Without recompiling the source code, it is not possible to test Flex in all cases. Saucelabs IDE claims that it can test Flex without recompiling the code. You may check that.
I think FlexMonkey is pretty cool and worth judging on your own. Most of these tools use the same underlying automation framework provided by Adobe, and thus have many of the same pains and challenges. We've actually done a lot the last few months to make it easier to work with and have been working to provide more documentation on dealing with common challenges.
If you do have problem, you will find that our Forums are very active with questions and answers: http://www.gorillalogic.com/forum/7
-Jon Rose -
Gorilla Logic, Inc
Some Flex automation tools support testing of Flex applications without requiring to recompile it.
RIATest definitely supports it (called runtime loading) and if I am not wrong QTP does it as well. AFAIK there are no open source tools that support it.
Beware though that runtime loading is not for every application. If for example you are using custom html wrapper you cannot use it with runtime loading.
I still find myself hand coding Visual Studio projects more than using the variety of UI-driven menus and dialogs. For example:
web projects: hand code html/css in Source View vs dealing with the Design View / Properties Window
flushing out class files: code by hand using stuff like the prop-TAB-TAB Create Property keyboard shortcut and good ole Ctrl+[X|C|V] instead of the Class Diagram feature
Do I need to give the dialogs and menus another shot, or is this the current state of IDEs? Intellisense is the best thing since sliced bread IMO.
Steve
I'd be quite content to have Microsoft remove the design view from Visual Studio. I find myself cursing it every time I accidentally hit the button and wait ages for the broken rendering engine to kick in. This is from the perspective of a web developer mind you - I'm sure it's essential for developing windows apps.
Generally I think most of the RAD tools are not particularly useful, and in the long run end up being problematic as they're not very flexible. When developing web forms asp.net applications the listview and repeater are generally the only controls that I use. Hand coding html/css would be the preference for most designers anyway. Tools like Dreamweaver are nice initially when you're learning, but you do get to a stage where you realise you're using them as a glorified text editor.
Intellisense as you mention is utterly bad arse, and the one thing that I would miss if I switched to something like e or Textmate.
I am not a .NET programmer, and I understand Visual Studio does provide a lot of nifty code generation tools. However, I think it's rather important that a developer knows the code in his application. If you feel comfortable hand-coding it because you feel more in control that way, I don't think that should bother you at all.
Also, as someone who writes a lot of HTML/CSS by hand, I know that Visual Studio's Design View does not churn out 'quality' front end code a lot of the time.
I personally hand code html/css as well as my class definitions 99% of the time. Exceptions would be things that would be hard to hand-code otherwise (does anyone hand-code WCF proxies?)
It's all about YOU. What makes YOU more productive. What makes more scenes for YOU.
It's good to know and learn alternative ways to achieve your goal. You can give it try but if it slows you down return to the way YOU used to code.
I certainly find the the UI designer only works for the simplest of pages, and even for them only for a few design iterations. I find this for two reasons
1) When laying out a page, there are often several legitimate choices, and I don't like the choices VS makes. For instance, it will set the width of tables using pixel sizes, while for most fluid pages percentages make more sense. Nothing wrong with what it does, but for whatever reason I find myself fighting it more often than not.
2) It hard-codes a lot of style information, and even creates synthetic styles in an in-page style sheet. I'd rather have a concise and comprehensive CSS for the site as a whole, minimizing overrides on each page (or in each element!). Again, I fight it more often than not.
Well the designer for WPF/Silverlight is pretty cumbersome to use. So I pretty much hand code xaml and C#. At the moment I do not do much asp but with MVC, I would assume I would hand code that.
With visual studio having intellisense for a lot different syntaxes now, it is easier then ever to hand code, well, code. :) I mean intellisense works for C#, CSS, javascript, asp, and XML (if set up right). It is pretty easy to code now days. The youngsters have it so easy now days. They do not know how hard it was to code back in the day.
I'd say it absolutely, 100% depends on what you're writing.
If it's a basic CRUD interface for a simple database, then I'd say yes, 80% is way too much.
If it's a Web Application with plenty of JQuery UI and no persistent data source, then 80% is probably less than I'd expect.
As Vadium said, it also depends on what makes you more productive. Personally, I fly along with Intellisense, but I'm not too good on using UI tools to build an app.
I always feel dumber using Visual Studio, but I have to finish my project sometime this century to get paid.
I've just finished a flash project where I did the entire project in "pure" AS3, without the use of the Flex framework. I found very little written about this on the web, so I'm not sure if this is a common way to develop RIA's, or if I've jumped off the shoulders of giants and done something stupid that will bite me later.
It seemed like a good idea at the time (famous last words!), but was hoping to hear from someone who could confirm.
Thanks,
Marcus
There's nothing wrong with it. People do that every day using FlashDevelop and AS3-only frameworks like PureMVC. Doing a complex app without any framework to support may get difficult to support in the future, but should be OK if you adhere to well known best practices. Future maintainability, especially if it has to be maintained be someone else, can also be greatly improved by using common design patterns throughout your code and architecture. Barring all that, if you're really just slinging code to build something with any real complexity, you're probably screwed unless you documented every function and the overall architecture very very well. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day you're (or someone else is) screwed! ;)
Flex is nice if you want to create something that looks great real fast within the confines of what the Flex framework gives you.
We used to fight weird framework bugs which Adobe didn't seem to care about or took way too long to fix. So we opted to drop Flex in favor of our own UI framework and we've never looked back since.
Sounds like a perfectly good idea. Flex is really just an overlay of rapid-prototyping, and communication standards, on top of pure AS3.
What you gain in ease of development and a large library and API, you lose in streamlined, strength and simplicity.
I'm currently developing a medium sized app in Flex and although the first phase of development was a breeze, the later stages have been fraught with weird framework eccentricities.
It is definitely okay. For example, I've heard that the Issuu.com platform is not based on Flex but a custom framework.
Thanks all! I've been very happy with AS3, and like the amount of control I get, as opposed to using MXML/Flex. It's good to hear I'm not crazy!