Related
I did some searches on developing a DSL in visual studio. At the beginning, I found out there is a Visualization and Modeling SDK for VS2010. It has a tool called DSL tool. But it seems that it is only for graphical DSL development.
Then I saw some posts saying "Oslo" is a tool for developing textual DSL, which "was" a Microsoft product - Microsoft no longer supports the tool. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/modelcitizen/archive/2010/09/22/update-on-sql-server-modeling-ctp-repository-modeling-services-quot-quadrant-quot-and-quot-m-quot.aspx
Therefore, I would like to know if I want to develop a textual DSL, what tool is the best? What do you think if I implement a DSL parser making use of F# powerpack with FSLex and FSYacc?
I am currently developing several external text-based DSLs using FsLex/FsYacc. I was using a hand parser, but I find the FsLex/FsYacc much easier to maintain in the design stage.
FsLex/FsYacc are not as sophisticated as ANTLR, but since most DSLs are fairly simple, FsLex/FsYacc are a perfectly sound choice for use within Visual Studio. And keeping DSLs simple is a good thing, since they are intended to be restricted and simple to learn.
I find Martin Fowler's book to be a good resource, less for the examples and details than as an encyclopedia of DSL ideas. His discussion of useability and other design aspects of DSLs is also worth reading. As Toumas indicated, it does not cover either F# or functional languages. Mr. Fowler writes that he lacked the experience in those subjects to bring the book to market in a timely way.
Having praised FsLex/FsYacc, I do still wish someone would write a good ANTLR back-end for F#. :)
-Neil
I am a fan of embedded DSLs, a la
http://lorgonblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/using-vs2010-to-edit-f-source-code-and-a-little-logo-edsl/
http://lorgonblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/fun-with-turtle-graphics-in-f/
where you just use leverage F# syntax with some good function names and possibly other syntax cleverness (lists, workflows, ...) to get code that "looks like maybe it is another language" but is actually just F#.
But yes, for external DSLs, you just need a grammar/parser/etc tool chain, and either FsLex/FsYacc, or maybe ANTLR or FParsec are various choices. (I don't have enough experience with any of these to know trade-offs among them.)
Since having made my earlier post, I have also bought and read parts of Terence Parr’s book “Language Implementation Patterns.” It is excellent, though quite a bit more technical than Martin Fowler’s book (with some additional material it could be a “Dragon Book” for the new millennium). The examples are strongly based in Java and ANTLR, but the text is the main thing, so the book is useful regardless of one’s language development environment.
Interestingly, there is little overlap between the two books. Martin Fowler’s book does a good job of covering the design and implementation of basic DSLs, such as those used for specification and configuration, while Terence Parr’s book is more technical and covers the realm extending all the way up through more sophisticated languages and byte-code machines. I recommend both if you can budget for them, otherwise, either is an excellent choice within its given domain.
Martin Fowler has a new book about DSL:s. Sadly, it won't discuss much about Microsoft's tooling nor functional languages.
Microsoft no longer support the graphical tool "Quadrant", but MGrammar is still supported and integrated to SQL server, right? MGrammar is the "DSL making language".
Still, I would say that functional languages (read: F#) are the way to go.
This book has a simple example of how to make a DSL with F#: http://www.manning.com/petricek/
and also Google finds many other good references about this topic.
Try MBase, but it only worth using if your DSL is complicated enough to require an efficient compiler and a PEG grammar. Otherwise FsYacc is more than enough.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is designed to handle arbitrary DSLs (I happen to be the architect).
Most people think if you have a parser you have enough, and it is technically true, in the same sense that if you have transistors you can build a computer.
In my experience you want a lot more than just a parser: you need ways to build symbol tables so that your generator knows what the meaning of a particular identifier is, means to analyze the specification, ways to easily encode your translation and to apply optimizations to generated results.
DMS provides all these capabilities to support building DSLs. And in that sense, it goes much beyond F#.
I have been developing websites for quite some time and I am not so good in designing websites? My Boss is refering me to take some lessons on it.
But I really want to stick to development rather than designing?
You don't need to be a designer. But I would highly recommend you understand the process and some of the techniques used. Having that knowledge will assist in both working with designers and providing better back ends.
I'd do the course, but make it clear to my boss that it's not what I want to do as a main job.
Answer yourself these questions:
What is your objective, the dream? developer or designer?
What are you best with?
Will I be able to justify with my design requirements?
It this common that a developer should be a designer too?
Will you be able to to concentrate on both, the ever changing trends and techs.
Having said that, I have seen such people having both skills but still they don't weigh equal in both parts.
Developer as well as designer:
Chris Coyier of css-tricks.com
Pekka
It depends on what you want to be in the future. Actually, designing and programming are two different skills. Obviously, for websites two things are both required. As a developer, if you have some basic knowledge about design, it would help you and also the designer to make the website much easier to maintain. But personally, I do not thinking you have to dive into design.
a good developer knows a lot about design, but dont have to be good at designing something.
i've seen to many developers building up a given design and making so much mistakes, because they don't see the little intricacies that are enormously important for a well designed website.
One particular design aspect I find many developers (good ones) are not necessarily extremely strong at is understanding of colors harmony. Even though it seems like easy thing to do, find the right combination of colors on a page, it is not always that easy. That course may be helpful in that regard.
I started of as a developer and then progressed into being a Developer/Designer.
You start to understand design aspects, UX aspects and the likes.
So i believe a good developer should also have a good understanding of design aspects as well
The bottom line is your boss thinks you'd benefit from a bit of immersion in design, and you probably will.
It doesn't sound like he wants you to become a designer, just get a feel for it. He's not asking for a career change.
There's always benefits in learning something new. And if your boss is backing you taking some time to do it got for it.
As a developer you should know something about usability and software ergonomics. You should know the basic structure of a website. And you should be able to implement a given design.
I think it is not the job of a developer to create a design.
Try to answer: "Why does your boss want you to improve skills in design? "
Your team is too expensive and boss is going to fire designer. He is wondering is it possible.
Your designer complains to boss that developers constantly ask him to refactor insignificant details interrupting from common tasks. So your boss wants to delegate small design decision to developers.
If it's so, I think nothing is a bad to improve design skills if your boss doesn't want you to convert to designer.
I also agree with all those people, who state: Developer and designer are two different roles.
Well, if developing is the field you are comfortable with, stick with it.
But learning is never bad. Try to gain knowledge first, after taking the classes, you can answer this question yourself
Wow, I'm actually in the exact opposite of your situation. I'm a designer just crossing the line of web development. But in my case, it was my own decision and it wasn't imposed by anyone.
It's always a plus if you have web development skills on top of design skills. I guess it holds true if you're a web developer and have design skills as well.
It never hurts to learn the basic, like others have mentioned, but keep in mind to stick on what you're good at and master it. Its better to be a master of something rather than being a jack of all trades. With so much competition out there, you really have to excel at your craft.
Learn both, but master one, I'd say. I personally see myself as a developer foremost, but I do know a thing or two about design - and, more specifically, implementing it (think CSS and the like).
However, I gratuitously admit that I am not good at making a design that looks good. A functional one, maybe, but not good. You could say something like that to your boss - that yes, you are capable of learning to design, however that you will never be as good as a real designer. Likewise, a designer learning to program will never be as good as a dedicated developer.
Many applications are let down by the quality of the 'writing' in their user interfaces: typically, poor spelling, grammar, inconsistent tone, and worse yet, "humour" are the usual offenders.
Are there good resources that can help developers to write UI messages that give a professional and positive impression to your customers, even when your code's going to hell in a handcart?
Thanks, all — Some great resources here, so I will CW this question. I'm accepting Adam Sill's answer because it's the one that (as a developer of desktop apps) I found most pertinent.
Since XP, I've been a fan of the Windows UX Guidelines sections that cover how to properly structure text (how to ask questions, how to make assertions in dialogs, etc).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa974176.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa974175.aspx
Read The Elements of Style. Then re-read it.
Also, anytime you are working with a program or website make a conscious effort to notice how they choose to do their writing. Imitate those you like.
The resources found at Writing for the Web might be useful to you.
The best tool for this is called "primary education". Many developers seem to have missed this, and I don't know how to fix that problem.
Also, this may be a British thing, but I think you mean "humor" and "going to Hell in a handbasket". :)
This book has a lot of good advice:
GUI Bloopers 2.0
Short version:
Be consistent throughout your application or app suite. Don't call the same feature two different names, even if they're in different dialogs, etc. Develop a product lexicon that everyone references.
Use the same terms that people who use your software use (i.e. users don't refer to themselves as users).
Don't call two different things by the same name.
Put all of the messages displayed to the user in a central place (i.e. a resources file of some kind). This makes it easy to review all of the messages for spelling, tone, consistency, and whatever else you want to check.
Usability test your software to see if the messages make sense and people can use your software easily. If they can't, change the resources file and test it again.
I would suggest showing your UI to as many people as you can--preferably people who read a lot (Just because reading does wonders for your grammar and vocabulary).
Getting something out that people can examine, however, is awesome--even if it's just a demo of the GUI.
If you work at a company, get to know your QA and Tech Support people. They are usually really wonderful once they understand what you are trying to do--they will review your UI, give you input on text and usability as well as possibly new requirements nobody in engineering would come up with.
If you work on your own, try to find a potential customer or two to review your UI. Ask them to pay attention to the text...
The more eyes, the better. You might even ask your parents, wife or other family. What can it hurt?
Get your application's texts proofread by someone who does just that for a living. Then the UI walked through by someone who does usability for a living. Neither of these two people should have been involved in the development.
It's the only way to make sure.
GUIs are one of the important areas in most of the software products. I would like to know whether there is something called GUI Standards that defines the best practices in GUI design, but in depth. As an example are there any definitions that contain the best size for a text box or the ratio between the width and hight of a Windows form. (Just to provide maximum ease to the user + best appearance)
While searching I found several articles: GUI Standards
But they seem to be some "Local" standards defined by some organization only for themselves. Do we have something more common/published than this?
I know there is a standard from Microsoft as well.. But it is just what they do. Not a practices list for best appearance\usability\user experience.
Look for platform-specific user interface design guides. Microsoft has one, as does Apple and even GNOME.
Things like this are quite "cultural", i.e. they change when you move between different operating systems and so on.
I don't think there is any GUI standard, but for sure there are some good GUI practices.
This article seems helpful
Principles of Good GUI Design
I found a similar SO question also
Best Practices & Principles for GUI design
Take a look at the User Experience Patterns (UX Patterns), by Infragistics. It's a nice source of inspiration.
I suggest this post : Best Practices & Principles for GUI design
Also, in google search, use "usability".
I also read a good book about it. But sorry, it is in French :-(
Use your users as a standard. What works best for them is what is best, so talk to them, show them prototypes and use their feedback as input to the final product.
Have a look at Jakob Nielsen's Website for a wealth of usability material.
Depends what you're doing. Nearly every platform has their own official and usually a few unofficial ones.
That's the beauty of standards if you
don't like it pick another one
. However GUI is not easy to standardise as there are multiple IO mechanisms - visual, non visual, one way, interactive etc.
No one standard could fit all - except perhaps and ISO or another standards body and that as we know will be obsolete before it's even completed a first draft.
On the other hand there are various psychologically based user experience techniques that are slowly becoming de rigeur standards.
Both Microsoft and Apple have had GUI standards for more than 20 years.
For instance expressed in the books "The Windows Interface. An Application Design Guide" (1987, ISBN 1-55615-439-9) and "Human Interface Guidelines: The Apple Desktop Interface" (1987, ISBN 0-201-17753-6). This information is also online.
The Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines might be what you're looking for...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511258.aspx
windows is originaly based on CUA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access
although microsoft has gone bananas since Vista, one example is the exchanged order of Edit and View menu commands in the calculator.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Does it make sense, having all of the C#-managed-bliss, to go back to Petzold's Programming Windows and try to produce code w/ pure WinAPI?
What can be learn from it? Isn't it just too outdated to be useful?
This question is bordering on religious :) But I'll give my thoughts anyway.
I do see value in learing the Win32 API. Most, if not all, GUI libraries (managed or unmanaged) result in calls to the Win32 API. Even the most thorough libraries don't cover 100% of the API, and hence there are always gaps which need to be plugged by direct API calls or P/invoking. Some of the names of the wrappers around the API calls have similar names to the underlying API calls, but those names aren't exactly self-documenting. So understanding the underlying API, and the terminology used therein, will aid in understanding the wrapper APIs and what they actually do.
Plus, if you understand the nature of the underlying APIs that are used by frameworks, then you will make better choices with regards to which library functionality you should use in a given scenario.
Cheers!
I kept to standard C/C++ for years before learning Win32 API, and to be quite blunt, the "learning Win32 API" part is not the best technical experience of my life.
In one hand Win32 API is quite cool. It's like an extension of the C standard API (who needs fopen when you can have CreateFile. But I guess UNIX/Linux/WhateverOS have the same gizmo functions. Anyway, in Unix/Linux, they have the "Everything is a file". In Windows, they have the "Everything is a... Window" (no kidding! See CreateWindow!).
In the other hand, this is a legacy API. You will be dealing with raw C, and raw C madness.
Like telling one's structure its own size to pass through a void * pointer to some Win32 function.
Messaging can be quite confusing, too: Mixing C++ objects with Win32 windows lead to very interesting examples of Chicken or Egg problem (funny moments when you write a kind of delete this ; in a class method).
Having to subclass a WinProc when you're more familiar with object inheritance is head-splitting and less than optimal.
And of course, there is the joy of "Why in this fracking world they did this thing this way ??" moments when you strike your keyboard with your head once too many and get back home with keys engraved in your forehead, just because someone thought it more logical to write an API to enable the changing of the color of a "Window", not by changing one of its properties, but by asking it to its parent window.
etc.
In the last hand (three hands ???), consider that some people working with legacy APIs are themselves using legacy code styling. The moment you hear "const is for dummies" or "I don't use namespaces because they decrease the runtime speed", or the even better "Hey, who needs C++? I code in my own brand of object-oriented C!!!" (No kidding... In a professional environment, and the result was quite a sight...), you'll feel the kind of dread only condemned feel in front of the guillotine.
So... All in all, it's an interesting experience.
Edit
After re-reading this post, I see it could be seen as overly negative. It is not.
It is sometimes interesting (as well as frustrating) to know how the things work under the hood. You'll understand that, despite enormous (impossible?) constraints, the Win32 API team did wonderful work to be sure everything, from you "olde Win16 program" to your "last Win64 over-the-top application", can work together, in the past, now, and in the future.
The question is: Do you really want to?
Because spending weeks to do things that could be done (and done better) in other more high-level and/or object-oriented API can be quite de-motivational (real life experience: 3 weeks for Win API, against 4 hours in three other languages and/or libraries).
Anyway, you'll find Raymond Chen's Blog very interesting because of his insider's view on both Win API and its evolution through the years:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/
Absolutely. When nobody knows the low level, who will update and write the high level languages? Also, when you understand the low level stuff, you can write more efficient code in a higher level language, and also debug more efficiently.
The native APIs are the "real" operating system APIs. The .NET library is (with few exceptions) nothing more than a fancy wrapper around them. So yes, I'd say that anybody who can understand .NET with all its complexity, can understand relatively mundane things like talking to the API without the benefit of a middle-man.
Just try to do DLL Injection from managed code. It can't be done. You will be forced to write native code for this, for windowing tweaks, for real subclassing, and a dozen other things.
So yes: you should (must) know both.
Edit: even if you plan to use P/Invoke.
On the assumption that you're building apps targeted at Windows:
it can sure be informative to understand lower levels of the system - how they work, how your code interacts with them (even if only indirectly), and where you have additional options that aren't available in the higher-level abstractions
there are times when your code might not be as efficient, high-performance or precise enough for your requirements
However, in more and more cases, folks like us (who never learned "unmanaged coding") will be able to pull off the programming we're trying to do without "learning" Win32.
Further, there's plenty of sites that provide working samples, code fragments and even fully-functional source code that you can "leverage" (borrow, plagiarize - but check that you're complying with any re-use license or copyright!) to fill in any gaps that aren't handled by the .NET framework class libraries (or the libraries that you can download or license).
If you can pull off the feats you need without messing around in Win32, and you're doing a good job of developing well-formed, readable managed code, then I'd say mastering .NET would be a better choice than spreading yourself thin over two very different environments.
If you frequently need to leverage those features of Windows that haven't received good Framework class library coverage, then by all means, learn the skills you need.
I've personally spent far too much time worrying about the "other areas" of coding that I'm supposed to understand to produce "good programs", but there's plenty of masochists out there that think everyone's needs and desires are like their own. Misery loves company. :)
On the assumption that you're building apps for the "Web 2.0" world, or that would be just as useful/beneficial to *NIX & MacOS users:
Stick with languages and compilers that target as many cross-platform environments as possible.
pure .NET in Visual Studio is better than Win32 obviously, but developing against the MONO libraries, perhaps using the Sharp Develop IDE, is probably an even better approach.
you could also spend your time learning Java, and those skills would transfer very well to C# programming (plus the Java code would theoretically run on any platform with the matching JRE). I've heard it said that Java is more like "write once, debug everywhere", but that's probably as true as (or even moreso than) C#.
Analogy: If you build cars for a living (programming), then its very pertinent to know how the engine works (Win32).
Simple answer, YES.
This is the answer to any question that is like.. "does it make sense to learn a low level language/api X even when a higher level language/api Y is there"
YES
You are able to boot up your Windows PC (or any other OS) and ask this question in SO because a couple of guys in Microsoft wrote 16-bit assembly code that loads your OS.
Your browser works because someone wrote an OS kernel in C that serves all your browser's requests.
It goes all the way up to scripting languages.
Big or small, there is always a market and opportunity to write something in any level of abstraction. You just have to like it and fit in the right job.
No api/language at any level of abstraction is irrelevent unless there is a better one competing at the same level.
Another way of looking at it: A good example from one of Michael Abrash's book: A C programmer was given the task of writing a function to clear the screen. Since C was a better (higher level) abstraction over assembly and all, the programmer only knew C and knew it well. He did his best - he moved the cursor to each location on the screen and cleared the character there. He optimized the loop and made sure it ran as fast as it could. But still it was slow... until some guy came in and said there was some BIOS/VGA instruction or something that could clear the screen instantly.
It always helps to know what you are walking on.
Yes, for a few reasons:
1) .net wraps Win32 code. .net is usually a superior system to code against, but having some knowledge of the underlying Win32 layer (oops, WinAPI now that there is 64-bit code too) bolsters your knowledge of what is really happening.
2) in this economy, it is better to have some advantages over the other guy when you are looking for a job. Some WinAPI experience may provide this for you.
3) some system aspects are not available through the .net framework yet, and if you want to access those features you will need to use p/invoke (see http://www.pinvoke.net for some help there). Having at least a smattering of WinAPI experience will make your p/invoke development effort a lot more efficient.
4) (added) Now that Win8 has been around for awhile, it is still built on top of the WinAPI. iOS, Android, OS/X, and Linux are all out there, but the WinAPI will still be out there for many many years.
Learning a new programming language or technology is for one of three reasons:
1. Need: you're starting a project for building a web application and you don't know anything about ASP.NET
2. Enthusiasm: you're very excited about ASP.NET MVC. why not try that?
3. Free time: but who has that anyway.
The best reason to learn something new is Need. If you need to do something that the .NET framework can't do (like performance for example) then WinAPI is your solution. Until then we keep ourself busy with learning about .NET
For most needs on the desktop you wont need to know the Win32, however there is a LOT of Win32 not in .NET, but it is in the outlaying stuff that may end up being less than 1% of your application.
USB support, HID support, Windows Media Foundation just off the top of my head. There are many cool Vista API's only available from Win32.
You will do yourself a large favor by learning how to do interop with a Win32 API, if you do desktop programing, because when you do need to call Win32, and you will, you won't spend weeks scratching your head.
Personally I don't really like the Win32 API but there's value in learning it as the API will allow more control and efficiency using the GUI than a language like Visual Basic, and I believe that if you're going to make a living writing software you should know the API even if you don't use it directly. This is for reasons similar to the reasons it's good to learn C, like how a strcpy takes more time than copying an integer, or why you should use pointers to arrays as function parameters instead of arrays by value.
Learning C or a lower level language can definitely be useful. However, I don't see any obvious advantage in using the unmanaged WinAPI.
I've seen low level Windows API code... it ain't pretty... I wish I could unlearn it. I think it benefits to learn low level as in C, as you gain a better understanding of the hardware architecture and how all that stuff works. Learning old Windows API... I think that stuff can be left to the people at Microsoft who may need to learn it to build higher level languages and API... they built it, let them suffer with it ;-)
However, if you happen to find a situation where you feel you just can't do what you need to do in a higher level language (few and far between), then perhaps start the dangerous dive into that world.
yes. take a look at uTorrent, an amazing piece of software efficiency. Half of it's small size is due to the fact that much of it's core components were re-written to not use gargatuian libraries.
Much of this couldn't be done without understanding how these libraries interface with the lower level API's
It's important to know what is available with the Windows API. I don't think you need to crank out code with it, but you should know how it works. The .NET Framework contains a lot of functionality, but it doesn't provide managed code equivalents for the entire Windows API. Sometimes you have to get a bit closer to the metal, and knowing what's down there and how it behaves will give you a better understanding of how to use it.
This is really the same as the question, should I learn a low level language like C (or even assembler).
Coding in it is certainly slower (though of course the result is much faster), but its true advantage is you gain an insight into what is happening at close to the system level, rather than than just understanding someone else's metaphor for what is going on.
It can also be better when things won't work well, or fast enough or with the sort of granularity that you need. (And do at least some subclassing and superclassing.)
I'll put it this way. I don't like programming to the Win32 API. It can be a pain compared to managed code. BUT, I'm glad I know it because I can write programs that otherwise I wouldn't be able to. I can write programs that other people can't. Plus it gives you more insight into what your managed code is doing behind the scenes.
The amount of value you get out of learning the Win32 API, (aside from the sorts of general insights you get from learning about how the nuts and bolts of the machine fit together) depends on what you're trying to achieve. A lot of the Win32 API has been wrapped nicely in .NET library classes, but not all of it. If for instance you're looking to do some serious audio programming, that portion of the Win32 API would be an excellent subject of study because only the most basic of operations are available from .NET classes. Last I checked even the managed DirectX DirectSound library was awful.
At the risk of shameless self-promotion....
I just came across a situation where the Win32 API was my only option. I want to have different tooltips on each item in a listbox. I wrote up how I did it on this question.
Even in very very high level languages you still make use of the API. Why? Well not every aspect of the API has been replicated by the various libraries, frameworks, etc. You need to learn the API for as long as you will need the API to accomplish what you are trying to do. (And no longer.)
Apart from some very special cases when you need direct access to APIs, I would say NO.
There is considerable time and effort required to learn to implement the native API calls correctly and the returning value is just not worth it. I would rather spend the time learning some new hot technology or framework that will make your life easier and programming less painful. Not decades-old obsolete COM libraries that nobody really uses anymore (sorry to COM users).
Please don't stone me for this view. I know a lot of engineers here have really curious souls and there is nothing wrong with learning how things work. Curiousity is good and really helps understanding. But from a managerial point of view, I would rather spend a week learning how to develop Android apps than how to calls OLEs or COMs.
If you planning to develop a cross platform application, If you use win32, then your application could easily run on linux through WINE. This results in a highly maintainable application. This is one of the advantages of learning win32.