i have robot and want to control it via internet using radio wave .. but still i dont know the best language to do that . with the need to build scure site to insure not any body can use it . i expect for site asp with c# but what is the language i'll need it to control from sender device to the recipt robot . also need to live video transfer to the site from robot camera............
soory for bothering .....i know it may wrong but i'm beginner
and thanks for all who read or try to help me
I think it might be best to narrow down your choice of technologies before choosing a programming language. Robotics control can be a very complex topic, and there are many approaches to solving the same problem.
Having said that, with the components you've listed:
Secure internet interface
RF communication to an autonomous robot
Embedded robot control software
Video processing, compression and decompression
Display of video to internet visitors
I would guess that your complete solution would involve at least two or three different programming languages, depending on application and environment.
It might be worth taking a look at Microsoft Robotics Studio to give you an exampleof a framework you can work with. Generally all the various controllers etc "talk" different languages so you use something like robotics studio to tie them all together so you can talk to them all in a common way.
It's a hell of a tall order for a beginner though, there's far more to think about than picking a language :-)
Related
everyone, maybe on many occasions you have come across someone who has many winforms applications developed in visual studio. Well, in my case, I have a fairly complete system made in a winforms environment and I need to transfer it to the web since a client changed his entire team to use mac. Someone has a recommendation because I would not like to have to start from scratch to reprogram everything. I also did not bother the customer by asking him to install virtual machines.
In advance, thanks for any suggestions
Converting Winforms to ASPX aka Webforms? Probably not a good idea: Webforms is discontinued. I would prefer Blazor, that is built on ASP.net Core. With outstanding interface performances.
You don't have much of a choice.
this really comes down to two systems having VAST different architectures.
Even on the desktop? You can no more convert a complex FoxPro application to vb.net. Or convert a ms-access system to FoxPro. They all would have been built from the ground up with 100's, if not 1000's of little design choices based on the given tool set.
This is kind of like the difference between a car, and say a airplane. They are both machines for transportation. But even things like the seats. One (the car) might have big comfortable seats - power assisted tilt etc. The goal is comfort, and total over all space and weight of that seat is not all that huge of a design goal.
Now, take the design for a seat in the airplane. It has to be lighter, thinner, probably use more fireproof materials. So 100's if not 1000's of SMALL design choices along the way will result in a seat for that car, or the plane.
It just a seat, right? So, since the architecture between the desktop and the web is much like the difference between a car and a helicopter? then little of the 100's if not 1000's of design criteria you used to create that desktop application simply will not apply, and thus the work can't be salvaged.
However, if you had used WPF in place of win forms for the desktop application? Then you can salvage a LOT more, since both the web application and the desktop application will have "mark-up" used to create the form/display in question.
In fact, this is one reason developers will choose WPF over winforms. (it allows easier migration to the web). And for those coming from web development? They will find WPF forms and layout VERY similar to how they do web development.
And the other reason of course is now with css, HTML5 and a whole bunch of other new things for the web? Well, then web developers actually have MORE UI choices then the desktop now!. So, WFP is an attempt to leverage many/much of the web based new technologies into desktop development. So while winforms don't support a graphics in a button? WPF does support this - so does the web.
But, ask any WPF developer? The cost + time for WPF desktop applications is a LOT more work. And so is creating web based. Some claim they can develop just as fast with WPF applications for the desktop - that's not what I seen - and NOT even close!! You find for the web, as much as 2 times, and often 3-5 times the cost compared to desktop.
Now to take a huge application and re-write because of a few Mac's? Well, that is crazy. You would setup terminal services, and have those Mac use remote desktop to run that application. Thus, the Mac's don't need VM's or anything.
But, there is no automated conversion system, and like parts, sets and doors from a car? They don't work nor fit on a helicopter. Too much difference of a architecture is at play here.
I guess this would depend on the size, scope and estimated cost of the existing application. But to allow workers at home (remote), people on the road, and that of allowing Macs to use that software? I don't see why terminal services is not a solution - and that can be setup in less then 1 day as opposed to a whole re-write of the given application (to run on a few Macs? - doubt that can justify a re-write).
If you're asking how to take the code you wrote over the years to create Winform-based, rich user experiences and adapt it for the web, then you will be disappointed.
The best you can hope for is to have such a clean separation of concerns in your existing app that it would allow you to salvage all code that's not UI dependent and use it in the backend of a whole new application. Everything else will have to be rewritten from scratch.
If your client still wants to use your Winform-based app in a Mac environment, he'll have to use a VM.
Broad, sweeping question here...
Assume you have built an enterprise level framework with some rich client in the .Net (Microsoft) sphere, with a WCF back end. Now, imagine that that enterprise framework's UI technology is being deprecated in favour of UWP.
The choices for a front end replacement basically are: UWP, Web (HTML), or some other rich client technology.
How would you go about the decision making process?
I personally lean toward a rich client where the user base is a captive user base. I mean, where the users' IT department is happy to install the necessary runtime environment on the machines, etc. This is usually not a problem with Microsoft technologies, and this won't be a problem in about 10 years when organizations roll out Windows 10.
But, people are telling me these days that web has come a long way. People are telling me that JavaScript frameworks are becoming very sophisticated, and that low level JavaScript for basic data binding and the like is mostly unnecessary.
I have really been turned off by web solutions like ASP in the past, but I do understand that technology has moved forward, and I do understand that Microsoft have been working on ASP.Net v Next which might actually be good?
The question is not so much what would you opt for? But, what factors would you take in to account to decide which platform to go for?
Opnion based answer here...
In a decision to adopt a particular tech for any project lies in many factors. I can cite two majors for your particular scenario.
1 - Client adoption. It's easy for the customers to use/install it? They need to pay some sort of license? Can it run in all platforms/devices the customer already own?
2 - Market adoption. It's easy for you co-workers to adopt it? It's hard to find/hire experienced/hardened developers? We need to pay some kind of license? Can I trust it ill be a long lived technology?
The answer to your question can be HTML.
Not only it is already got a lot of momentum in market, it ill take years to change it even if today someone (big like MS or Google) put some new (better) stuff on the table.
Also if someone on MS marketing dep say next week Universal Windows Platform or WinRT must die it ill die (like Silverlight). So Im not adopting some new technology just because some big player told me to do it.
Yes web has come a long way indeed. You can do a lot of amazing things just with JS+HTML+CSS those days. Also the right usage/architecture of it ill allow you to put your app running in PCs, Tablets and Mobiles (at a minimum cost to port between devices) and capable in running in anything can access internet.
I suggest you to catch up and learn a lot about webservices, Json, JS libraries like JQuery, Sammy and some nice stuff like Knockout, SPA, Angular, Node, etc.
Edit, answer to comments
To not start a chatty comment I'll respond here. Yes your questions and comments brings interesting questions. To let it readable for posterity both of us can edit answer and question to organize it.
Silverlight. How not love it? In special after strugling with flash. It's a shame MS pulled the plug (die in hell MS CEOs). When MS let it to die I was planning a big web app SL was my first choice. Why I changed my mind? Well 2 years to develop that app and at the end how much browser ill get along supporting it? The SL community is great, the tool is great but browsers can just say, Hey tomorrow there's no guarantee it keep working.
.Net and MS platforms. I'm a .Net developer. I adopted it since beta, first to work with winforms (in a previous life I was a proud Delphi developer). After a while started to work with web. I also worked in classical ASP (bad times) and loved .Net ASP from start.
You can run .Net apps in almost any PC in the planet today. Not exactly true for all mobiles/gadgets. For browsers pure HTML+JS+CSS ill to better because it's lightweight (done right). Also we can move a lot of thing to client side and just let it hit the server only when necessary. .Net apps can do that, sure, but ill never be light as a tailored HTML+JS+CSS.
In fact I believe you can do anything with .Net and you can do amazing things if you got a few good developers in your team. But depending on the project it ill do better (and cheaper) in HTML or PHP or Ruby or Java, etc.
In fact at a previous shop, with both PHP and .Net teams we found (after 1 year study, metrics, lots of projects) small projects are better done in PHP, larger ones in .Net (if I remember a medium project can be 4k to 6k men/hours).
The point here is. You really must read a lot about HTML, CSS, JS, SPA, Angular, etc. Bringing to live a big and shinning web app is challenging today not because what we can do (we can do anything) but how we can do. DDD, MVC, MVVM. Testing framework, etc. Man Node is the future (the concept at least).
Web developing really changed in the last years and with it the clients and users expectations. Today no one ill wait for more than 2 secs for a page to load. Everybody wants usability to be at the top of the table from project scratch. You app must be responsive, etc. (not using Dilbertian management buzz words here for the sake of it. Just stating usability is that important today).
And don't forget everyone wants it to be beatifull (from a graphical designer point of view) even if it's a dull B2B supposed to be used only by cave mens.
Even if you stick to a classical .Net app learn about the (many) options, that can bring a new wider perspective.
I have decided to answer this question here because we've had a lot more time to investigate and look at different options. The original question turned out to be a bit of a furphy. Pure UWP and Web are not the only options. There is also a Xamarin Forms as an option which includes UWP, Android, and iOS. As a personal preference, I am leaning toward using Xamarin Forms as a client instead of any other development platform because it supports three OSs out of the box: Windows 10, iOS, and Android.
I believe the answer to the question is: you should only develop a web app if you need to. Does your user base consist of people who will mostly prefer a browser over apps? Are your potential users likely to want to avoid downloading an app? Is your app very simple, and you want people to be able to dive in very quickly? Are you able to get away without access to things like the camera, location and push notifications? If you can answer yes to these things, then I think you should go for HTML 5/JavaScript. If however, your user base is comfortable downloading apps, and you think that your app will require a UI more sophisticated than most browser apps, I'd recommend looking at Xamarin Forms as the preferred option. We've had very good success with Xamarin Forms so far, and the UWP version of our Xamarin Forms app has turned out just as good as our first stab at a UWP app.
Note: I should give Web Assembly (http://webassembly.org/) an honorable mention here. This technology is being considered in all the big tech organisations like Microsoft, Apple, and Google. One day, it may make deployment of native apps in a browser great again.
I have been tasked to develop an application for my school that should be usable by smartphones.
Now, I have never done any smartphone programming so there is a lot of research to be done regarding well, everything.
So, my question here is, if I have to develop an application with no specific smartphone in mind, what would the most generic kind then be?
Second, I am looking for some reading material where I can get an understanding of the common aspects of the various smartphones so that I can pick the tools to work with, that are generic across smartphones. Any suggestions?
For the lowest barrier to entry for this project, consider using HTML/JavaScript and running it (at first) as a web page. Then, if you decide this is the path you want to take, use PhoneGap (or similar) to create native apps from your existing work.
May not be at the exact 'generic' level you are looking for, but the 'Mono' project may be worth a look.
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
Its a commercial project allowing developers to create production code in C#/.Net, and use the Mono framework to deploy to cross platforms such as Macs, iphones, andriods etc..
I would agree with the above that HTML/CSS coded for the respective browsers using mobile resolutions would be the easiest way to go - but should you really wish to have a native application instead of a web-app, then Mono could be useful to you.
I'm evaluating the Microsoft Anti-Cross Site Scripting Library (AntiXSS V3)
I have to say it seems to me that apart from providing a more comprehensive white list of acceptable characters, it's not really bringing anything to the party that a diligent programmer who encoded all his user/agent modifiable output wouldn't be doing anyway.
Am I missing a trick?
I don't think you're missing anything except for the fact that the number of programmers who are aware of proper secure coding is very small, and those that can do it properly are fewer still.
The libraries are written to make things easier for your average developer, and I would assume that any library that is written by Microsoft with the express purpose of enhancing security would be done by a coder (or team of coders) that are experts in the field, as opposed to your normal everyday developer who focuses on the needs of their company.
(I would think they would put a lot of importance on doing this right, considering how Microsoft products are always painted as being painted as "insecure" by MS-haters)
As a parallel, think about encryption. A diligent coder could come up with a secure encryption algorithm. However, OWASP guidelines tell you NOT to come up with your own algorithm, but to use tested algorithms developed by experts and well-tested.
If we have a tool by experts that does the job for it, why would we try to do this on our own? I'd say it would be good to use the Microsoft Anti-Cross Site Scripting Library for this reason alone, if it works as advertised.
I work in a shop that is mostly .NET based, and we're trying to pick out a content management system to use. This means we mostly likely won't be able to use any of the common open source CMS projects (Plone, phpNuke, anthing not based on .NET, etc.).
Since I'm a huge usability nerd (just finished reading The Design of Everyday Things by Norman), I've been looking at them from that point of view. Frankly, I haven't been too impressed. This quote sums it up:
Most open source content management software is useless. The only thing worse is every commercial CMS I’ve used. - Jeffrey Veen
Here's a short list of our requirements:
Has to be .NET based
Prefer open source or on the inexpensive side
Limited feature set (we don't need too many features and they make things harder to use)
Does need Active Directory integration and robust permissions
Should be focused on web standards and usability
I know it's probably an impossible feature list, but are there any content management systems that kinda sorta look like they might not suck more than a Dyson?
Edit:
Here's the current situation:
I'm going to push for N2. I've got Active Directory integration working well (I even wrote a custom role provider). The only thing missing is workflow functionality. Hopefully I can get something going with that since it's the last sticking point. The N2Contrib project might provide a starting point if I can figure it out.
I would still love to check out Stencil CMS if/when it gets off the ground.
One of my co-workers was trying to get Umbraco going but wasn't having much luck.
Thanks for the help!
Self-plug is lame, but what you're describing is pretty much exactly what I am getting ready to release for $79 a pop. If you're still looking in a few weeks, take a peek. If you'd like, shoot me an email (rex#stencilcms.com).
I've heard both positive and negative feedback about Umbraco. A lot of people like Graffiti, but it's more blog-oriented than a full-blown CMS.
Check out N2 (http://n2cms.com/). I think that it covers most, if not all, of your requirements (I don't think it has Active Directory capability at this time). We are using N2 and I have really enjoyed how flexible it has been.
My company just completed a review of several commercial .NET-based CMS/portal platforms and, while I can't reveal who was in them (thanks, NDAs!), I can tell you that IMO they all sucked very, very badly.
Good luck on your search. I'll keep an eye on this thread in the hopes that there's something we missed.
We had a similar set of requirements and chose Telerik Sitefinity. It's got it's faults but overall I've been happy with it so far.
Unfortunately Jeffery speaks the truth. Which is probably why I build a new custom cms from the ground up every few years. Basically, the motivation for "boxed" CMS packages is to have every feature on earth and be everything to everyone and therefore do nothing particularly well for anyone. With the feature bloat comes the usability nightmares. Unless you start customizing and then you usually end up forking the project and losing the advantage of community updates.
Kentico CMS according your list:
Has to be .NET based
It's .net based, .NET Framework 2.0 or later
Prefer open source or on the inexpensive side
Free edition which can be used for commercial purposes is available, paid license starts at $750, source code is an option
Limited feature set (we don't need too many features and they make things harder to use)
Many built-in modules/features, anyway they can be easily disabled to keep the UI simple to use
Does need Active Directory integration and robust permissions
AD, Forms and Live Id! Integration
Should be focused on web standards and usability
UTF-8 Support including RTL languages, WAI Compliant, XHTML Compliant, XML, XHTML, HTML, XSLT, CSS.
Instant on-line demo or download available at:
http://www.kentico.com/Download.aspx