Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
One thing I've always found frustrating is when a library I use is no longer maintained. Even looking at update history and community beforehand, I've run into the situation where I check back later to find that the version I'm using is the last version.
Generally this goes unnoticed until a few months have passed, or some bug/limitation has been found. I run into this fairly often when coding in Python, because my desire to upgrade to a new version of the interpreter can easily introduce problems in libraries that worked fine before. My question is: what is the best response to this situation?
Do you become the maintainer of the old library? Even if you're only fixing the bugs you care about, this is still a lot of work. Especially if the library is large, complex, and has less-than-well-documented code (the case more often than not).
Do you switch to a different library (if there is one)? This is also a significant undertaking, with the potential to introduce new bugs, especially if the only alternatives approach the problem from a different angle. This can be true even if you had the foresight to write an abstraction layer for the old library's functionality.
Do you roll your own? It probably ends up as less code than the old library, since you only write the parts you care about. It's therefore easier to maintain in the future. But now you've wasted days/weeks/months to produce something that is probably less functional, and is guaranteed to introduce tons of new bugs.
I realize the answer depends on the specific case: the size of the library, whether source is available, how maintainable it is, how much of it your code uses, how deeply your code relies on it, etc. I'm looking for answers across a range of cases. What are your experiences with this problem?
Well, you've found one argument to lessen the number of external dependencies...
I've come across this in several Java projects I've audited; it seems people have a tendency to drop in a Jar found somewhere on the Web for the tiniest amount of reuse possible from it. The result is a mess of dependencies that ends up undermining the code base. I prefer to use external components sparingly.
It's probably most useful to ask what you can do before. Make a point of evaluating the future lifetime of an external component before you start using it. Do some research on how large its developer community and its user community are. Also, prefer to use a component that has one or two "lesser" alternatives which you could also use.
If there's something you're tempted to use, but it has only one or two people working on it and isn't used much beyond their own project, then you should probably roll your own - or join forces with the maintainers of the component.
I think your really answer is in how do you select third party libraries to include in your code.
If you happen to like constantly upgrading your code to the latest version of the language then by default you can only use libraries that have active communities behind them
In fact I would go as far as saying that the only time that you want to use a third party open source library is when the community behind it is large (say at least 40+ users) and it has undergone a few releases.
For a commercial library the same thing applies how long is the company going to be around and how many other clients use it.
If you can't find a library in this position then ensure that you abstract the third party library out of your code so replacement isn't hard in the future.
When the Java EE framework my employer chose went belly up, we went out and found a newer, better one. Fortunately Spring was available.
We prefer to roll our own for that very reason. We end up with full control over it, full knowledge of how it works, and we can change it any way we want. When our ass is on the line when the blame game is played, we prefer to reduce the risk and do it ourselves.
We had a situation once where we did use an external library, and it got rewritten and repurposed by the author and no longer did what we expected. We rolled over that, wrote our own version, and continued safely.
The bottom line is safety, and minimization of risk.
If the source is available, the licence is open and the library does the job really well, you have the option to fork the library. By doing this, you can also add new features to it. If the library has lots of things to fix and the code is a mess, it is better to find something else to work with.
Related
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Its my last semester of college and I have to do a big presentation in December. I plan on designing a small language that not only works, but also has some nifty features to go with it. Does anyone have any interesting syntax ideas or features that would impress my professors?
Note: I do not want to just copy a language and reimplement it. Im looking to do a little research and try some new ideas out.
I have a crazy idea.
There are compilers that compile compilers. This is fun enough by itself.
You can implement one in the MetaII style (read this other SO answer:
Are there any "fun" ways to learn about Languages, Grammars, Parsing and Compilers?)
What makes this doable for a student project is that the MetaII compiler is remarkably small, and
the technical paper (read the other answer) has everything you need in 10 pages
except some sweat, which you supply. And this fits
well in the time frame you have available (which is frankly pretty short for as student
to just sit down and whack out a compiler by himself).
MetaII's own description of itself is remarkably terse: only some 50 lines(!).
And since it can compile itself, it can compile enhanced versions of itself... so
you can use it to bootstrap much more complicated compilers. Normally, that's the
direction most people want to take it, since MetaII by itself is fairly simple.
Here's the crazy idea: You can also use it to compile less capable versions of itself.
The question is, how much can you take out, and still be able to climb back up the
metacompiler ladder? How small a compiler can you build that is still bootstrappable?
I know for a fact that MetaII has 2 items are removable, since I've done
this in the long distant past. I'm not going to tell you what they are becuase
that spoils the discovery process. But its good in a student project to take
on something that is already known to be doable, so you don't go down alleys
that have real dead ends.
One of the people I'm knew long ago apparantly tried to do this seriously. His goal was to reduce this to a very short string of characters... think of this as "compiler DNA".
Whilst I might not be able to answer your question directly, I am sure this will give you some insights from my own experience - given, for a final year project I also attempted my own scripting language (in C++) - although I am aware you're attempting a compiler so there might not be similarities. Please learn from my mistakes.
From experience:
What you imagine the scripting language will do (you type in a command, does something nifty like it fixes windows or something) and what it actually does (you type in a command, but minutes later it crashes) can often be two different things. Keep it realistic.
Aside from the brain imagining this fantastic finished product (with no inbetween), it also has a tendency of deluding itself on it's own capabilities (like 'other programmers made that mistake but I won't!'). Chances are you do make the same mistakes, or if not the same, different mistakes.
The brain has a poor ability to assess time required (if it's thinking 'it's just a hack job that'll take a month' - think again), and time it thinks is required should be multiplied between 5 to 10 times (if not more) to get an accurate idea of real scope needed. Keep to the lengthy end of the scope - worse-case scenario.
Unexpected pitfalls. Like 'how do I implement multi-precedented logic statements' and 'it's taking longer than I expected (see 3.)'. Be willing to give up complicated matters.
Design. Don't just look for ideas, think about whether or not it's a viable project, and look at how you're going to implement the groundwork before jumping to the complicated stuff (see 1.). Laying the groundwork early on can save you time. And don't forget design documents.
Research. Chances are that function you plan to write out, has already been written before somewhere. Research for it. This will save you time. Do not reinvent the wheel and do not be concerned about efficiency (university is about learning).
As one commenter said, start simple, get it working, then expand.
Best way to develop useful ideas, is to see what really bothers you about a certain task or certain scripting languages, and build it so you can eliminate or minimise that task. For example, I got annoyed by having to keep downloading files from a website and sorting it manually into specific folders - so I built a program to do that for me.
Don't go general-purpose for such a small project. Find a niche where you would like to be able to program a solution to an everyday problem. Off the top of my head, how about a constraint language for window placement in your X11 window manager of choice?
If you're just looking to have some fun, then you should try and create your own 'esoteric language'. 'Brainf**k' has kinda achieved meme status in the community (If I'm not wrong)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have noticed I do not code as much as I use to. Today I dedicate more time to analysis and design, then I communicate that design to programmers. Then they do the coding. This has affected my coding productivity, because I must consult references and rely on intellisense. Things are becoming more complex everyday
Now, here is the irony. If I were to hire a programmer and ask him/her to sit in front of a computer, I may ask to do some coding and I would check abilities. I would evaluate them based on their use of memory vs. consulting references. Maybe I will prefer that programmer who did not consult too much, but who knows what they are doing.
What is your opinion and experience?
I would say that a developer who knows how to find the answers is better than one who has an overall good knowledge already. I find that intellisense is a good tool for finding answers, besides it is too much to remember all method names, arguments, overloads, etc.
I use memory to get me into the right general area (e.g. knowing which classes to use or at least which namespace they'll be in) and then often Intellisense/MSDN for the exact method name or arguments to use.
Having said that, Stack Overflow is improving my ability to code without any references (or even compilation) - I'm sure code will just work out of the box for me more often now than it used to. (I tend to post and then check the code works, add links to MSDN etc - assuming I'm reasonably confident in the approach.)
Someone knowing what resources are available, and how to find the answers, and how to effectively debug - these are qualities I look for now in prospective employees.
I used to consult my memory only, but two things have happened:
Class libraries have gotten larger, so has the number of languages available
The ratio of programming-related memory to personal-life-related memory has shifted away from code
Programming today is also eight times harder than it was when I started. I used to work on 8-bit machines, now I'm working on 64-bit ones. :)
I once was at a job interviewed with the CTO of a company. He asked a question based on a real life problem the company had a while back and solved. It was a multi step problem.
I was standing in front of a whiteboard working through my solution and struggling through a particular part, a part I would use google for before even attempting it, had I been tasked with solving this problem for real instead of for an interview. He asked me at that point, "would you do anything different if this wasn't an interview question." I responded, "Yes. I would exhaust all possibilities of using a third party component for this part of the task and look up the solution, because it is a well defined problem thats been solved several times." There was a bit more discussion where I justified my answer, explained exactly what I would research, and I solved some other parts of the question. In the end I was offered and accepted the job, partly because of knowing how to find out what I didn't know.
Being able to use references is as important as being able to code from memory. Obviously, if you are a one language shop, and want people proficient in that language,the person should be able to write a complete hello world app in notepad. Interview problems should focus on small problems, and one should not worry about small syntax errors. This is why a whiteboard is the best IDE for interview questions.
Unless you demand all your coders use notepad and don't give them internet access, don't be as concerned by the syntax. If you do sit them down in front of a computer, worry about the finished product as well as the technique used to get there.
I'm a PHP programmer in my early 30's. I rely on PHP's excellent documentation, for several reasons:
Programming concepts don't change. If I know what my object models are and how I want to manipulate data, then there's dozens of ways to implement the details. The details are important, but a better grasp of the design and structure is more important
PHP has notoriously inconsistent functions. One string function might use ($needle,$haystack) as parameters, and another might use ($haystack,$needle). Trying to keep them straight isn't worth the hassle when you can just type php.net/function_name and get the reference.
I don't rely on intellisense, simply because I haven't found a decent IDE for PHP that does it well. Eclipse is ok, but it's not fantastic. Netbeans gives me 'PHPDoc not found' for all the built-in PHP functions whenever I install it. There's nothing that I've found so far that beats out the documentation.
The bottom line is that the ability to memorize functions isn't indicative of coding ability. Obviously there's a key set of basic functions that a good programmer will know just from extensive usage over time, but I wouldn't base a hiring decision on whether someone knows substr_replace vs. str_replace from memory.
Because I've read either the documentation, or articles, or a book on a subject, the things I learn on a topic are organized. The result is that, if I can't bring something up from memory, I can probably find it quickly through IntelliSense or the Object Browser.
Worse come to worst, I can pick up the book again; something these youngsters are not being taught to do.
John Saunders
Age 51
Pretty much Google + Old Projects + my memory (of course)
References will not solve your problems though, its only for the nuts and bolts, the higher level of problem solving is the actual "programming" part IMHO.
I tend to use Intellisense and Resharper much more than I used to before, but this has helped my overall productivity. If I can get the idea of how I want to solve something and then use tools to get the more boring parts like class names and function signatures, why shouldn't I use the tools I have? I feel relieved that Jon Skeet has a similar approach it seems.
I rely on my bookmarks and books... and my ability to use them effectively. I have multiple books above my desk, including a copy of the ISO C90 standard. Moreover, I use Xmarks to have access to my bookmarks wherever I go. Sometimes, I make a pdf out of a particular page and upload it to my web-site if it is important enough.
Sometimes the information provided by the resources I use makes its way into my terrible memory... maybe.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am converting an open source Java library to C#, which has a number of methods and classes tagged as deprecated. This project is an opportunity to start with a clean slate, so I plan to remove them entirely. However, being new to working on larger projects, I am nervous that the situation will arise again. Since much of agile development revolves around making something work now and refactoring later if needed, it seems like deprecation of APIs must be a common problem. Are there preventative measures I can take to avoid/minimize API deprecation, even if I am not entirely sure of the future direction of a project?
I'm not sure there is much you can do. Requirements change, and if you absolutely have to make sure that clients of the API are not broken by newer API version, you'll have rely on simply deprecating code until you think that no-one is using the deprecated code.
Placing [Obsolete] attributes on code causes the compiler to create warnings if there are any references to the obsolete methods. This way clients of the API, if they are diligent about fixing their compiler warnings, can gradually move to the new methods without having everything break with the new version.
Its useful if you use the ObsoleteAttribute's override which takes a string:
[Obsolete("Foo is deprecated. Use Bar instead for munging widgets.")]
<frivolous>
Perhaps you could create a TimeBombAttribute:
[TimeBomb(new DateTime(2010,1,1), "Foo will blow up! Better use Bar, or else."]
In your code, reflect for methods with the timebomb attribute and throw KaboomException if they are called after the specified date. That'll make sure that after 1st January 2010 no-one is using the obsolete methods, and you can clean up your API nicely. :)
</frivolous>
As Matt says, the Obsolete attribute is your friend... but whenever you apply it, provide details of how to change calling code. That way you've got a lot better chance of people actually changing. You might also want to consider specifying which version you anticipate removing the method in (probably the next major release).
Of course, you should be diligent in making sure you don't call the obsolete code - particularly in sample code.
Since much of agile development revolves around making something work now and refactoring later if needed
That's not agile. It's cowboy coding disguised under the label of agile.
The ideal is that whatever you complete, is complete, according to whatever Definition of Done you have. Usually the DoD states something along the lines of "feature impelmented, tested and related code refactored". Of course, if you are working on a throwaway prototype, you can have a more relaxed DoD.
API modifications are a difficult beast. If they are only project-internal APIs you are modifying, the best way to go is to refactor early. If you need to change the internal API, just go ahead and change all API clients at the same time. This way the refactoring debt does not grow very large and you don't have to use deprecation.
For published APIs you probably have some source and binary compatibility guarantees you have to maintain, at least until the next major release or so. Marking the old APIs deprecated works while maintaining compatibility. As with internal APIs, you should fix your internal code as soon as possible to not use the deprecated APIs.
Matt's answer is solid advice. I just wanted to mention that intially you probably want to use something along the lines of:
[Obsolete("Please use ... instead ", false)]
Once you have the code ported, change the false to true and the compiler will then treat all the calls to the method as an error.
Watch Josh Bloch's "How to Design a Good API and Why It Matters"
Most important w/r/t deprecation is knowing that "when in doubt, leave it out." Watch the video for clarification, but it has to do with having to support what you provide forever. If you are realistically expecting that API to be reused, you're effectively setting your decisions in stone.
I think API design is a much trickier thing to do in an Agile fashion because you're expecting it to be reused probably in many different ways. You have to worry about breaking others that are dependent on you, and so while it can be done, it's tough to have the right design emerge without getting a quick turnaround from other teams. Of course deprecation is going to help here, but I think YAGNI is a lot better design heuristic when it comes to APIs.
I think deprecation of code is an inevitable byproduct of Agile processes like continuous refactoring and incremental development. So if you end up with deprecated code as you work on your project, that's not necessarily a bad thing--just a fact of life. Of course, you will probably find that, rather than deprecating code, you end up keeping a lot of code but refactoring it into different methods, classes, and so on.
So, bottom line: I wouldn't worry about deprecating code during Agile development. If it served its purpose for a while, you're doing the right thing.
The rule of thumb for API design is to focus on what it does, rather than how it does it. Once you know the end goal, figure out the absolute minimum input you need and use that. Avoid passing your own objects as parameters, pass only data.
Seperate configuration from execution. For exmaple, maybe you have an image encoder/decoder.
Instead of making a call like:
Encoder.Encode( bytes, width, height, compression_type, compression_ratio, palette, etc etc);
Make it
Encoder.setCompressionType(compression_type);
Encoder.setCompressionType(compression_ratio);
etc,etc
Encoder.Encode(bytes, width, height);
That way adding or removing settings is much less likely to break existing implementations.
For deprecation, there's basically 3 types of APIs: internal, external, and public.
Internal is when its only your team working on the code. Deprecating these APIs isn't a big deal. Your team is the only one using it, so they aren't around long, there's pressure to change them, people aren't afraid to change them, and people know how to change them.
External is when its the same code base, but different teams are using it. This might be some common libraries in a large company, or a popular open source library. The point is, people can choose the version of code they compile with. The ease of deprecating an API depends on the size of the organization and how well they communicate. IMO, its the deprecator's job to update old code, rather than mark it deprecated and let warnings fly throughout the code base. Why the deprecator instead of the deprecatee? Because the depcarator is in the know; they know what changed and why.
Those two cases are pretty easy. So long as there is backwards compatibility, you can generally do whatever you'd like, update the clients yourself, or convince the maintainers to do it.
Then there are public api's. These are basically external API's that the clients don't have much control over, such as a web API. These are incredibly hard to update or deprecate. Most won't notice its broken, won't have someone to fix it, won't get notifications that its changing, and will only fix it once its broken (after they've yelled at you for breaking it, over course).
I've had to do the above a few times, and it is such a chore. I think the best you can do is purposefully break it early, wait a bit, and then restore it. You send out the usual warnings and deprecations first, of course, but - trust me - nothing will happen until something breaks.
An idea I've yet to try is to let people register simple apps that run small tests. When you want to do an API update, you run the external tests and contact the affected people.
Another approach to be popular is to have clients depend on (web) services. There are constructs out there that allow you to version your services and allow clients to perform lookups. This adds a lot more moving parts and complexity into the equation, but can be helpful if you are looking at turning over a lot of versions, and having to support multiple versions in production.
This article does a good job of explaining the problem and an approach.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
What would you suggest for the following scenario:
A dozen of developers need to build and design a complex system. This design needs to be documented for future developers and the design decisions must be noted. These reports need to be made about every two months. My question is how this project should be documented.
I see two possibilities. Each developer writes about the things they helped design and integrate and then one person combines each of these documents together. The final document will probably be incoherent or redundant at times since the person tasked of assembling everything won't have much time to adjust every part.
Assume that the documentation parts from each developer arrive just a few days before deadline. A collaborative system (i.e. wiki) wouldn’t work properly since there wouldn’t be anything to read until a few days before deadline.
Or should a few people (2-3) be tasked with writing the documentation while the rest of the team works on actually developing the system? The developers would need a way to transfer their design choices and conclusions to the technical writers. How could this be done efficiently?
We approach this from 2 sides, using a RUP style approach. In the first case, you'll have a domain expert who is responsible for roughing out the design of what you're going to deliver - with developers chipping in as necessary. In the second case, we use a technical author - they document the application, so they should have a good idea of how it hangs together, and you involve them right through the design and development process. In this case, they can help to polish the design, and to make sure that it matches what they thought was being developed.
We use confluence (atlassian's wiki-like-thing) and document all kinds of different "things". The developers do it continiously, and we push each other for docs - we let peer pressure decide what is necessary. Whenever someone new comes along he/she is tasked with reading through everything and to find out what still is correct. The incorrect stuff is either deleted or updated as a consequence of this. We're happy when we can delete stuff ;)
The nice thing about this process is that the relevant stuff stays and the irrelevant stuff is deleted. We always "got away" from the more formalized demands by claiming that we could always construct the word documents they wanted if "they" needed them. "They" never needed them.
I think alternative 2 is the less agile, because it means a new stage to the project (although it may be in parallel with tests).
If you are in an agile model, then just add documentation (following a guideline) as a story.
If you are in a staged approach, then I would nevertheless ask developers to work on documentation, following some guidelines, and review that documentation along the design and the code. Eventually, you may have a technical writer reviewing everything for proper English, but that would be a kind of "release" activity.
I think you can use Sand Castle to document your project.
Check it out
Sand Castle from Microsoft
It's not a complete documentation, but making sure that interfaces etc. are commented using Doxygen-style comments means writing code and documenting it are closer together.
That way, developers should document what they do. I still think a review by the architect(s) is needed to ensure consistent quality, but ensuring people document what they do is the best way to ensure they follow the architecture.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm not a full-time software guy. In fact, in the last ten years, 90 % of my work was either on the hardware or doing low-level (embedded) code.
But the other 10% involves writing shell scripts for development tools, making kernel changes to add special features, and writing GUI applications for end-users.
The problem is that I find myself facing significant holes in my knowledge, often because it's been years since I've done "X", and I've either forgotten, or the environment has changed.
Every so often, there are threads on TheDailyWTF.com along the lines of "WTF: the guy spent all day writing tons of code, when he could have called foobar() in library baz". I've been there myself, because I don't remember much beyond the #include <stdio.h> stuff (for example), and my quick search somehow missed the right library.
What methods have you found effective to crash-learn and/or crash-refresh yourself in programming environments that you rarely touch?
Ask developers you know that work in the environment that you are interested in.
Search the web a lot.
Ask specific questions in relevant IRC channels (Freenode is great).
Ask specific questions on StackOverflow and other sites.
There really isn't any substitue for being "in the daily flow" of the programming environment in question. Having a good feel for the current state of the art is something you only get from experience, as I'm sure you can verify in you own areas of expertise.
i try to keep up with general news about languages i'm interested in but aren't necessarily using at the moment. being able to follow the general changes helps a lot for when you have to pick it up again.
beyond that, i personally find it easiest to grab an up to date reference book, and code a few basic things to get me used to the environment again, ie as a web programmer i'd make a simple crud app, or a quick web service/client.
For frameworks/APIs (such as a JavaScript framework or a widget library):
Quickly scan through the entire API documentation; get a glimpse of all that's out there instead of picking the first method that seems to fit your needs.
If available, glance at the source code of the
framework to see how the
API was intended to be used. Seeing what's behind the curtain helps. And also
some of the methods will have been used
internally, showcasing their true intents.
Don't necessarily always trust existing code (Googled, from co-workers, from books) since not everyone does the due diligence to find out the most proper way to use an API. Sometimes even samples in API documentation can be out-of-date.
In newer full-featured environments like Java, .NET, and Python, there are library solutions to almost every common problem. Don't think "how can I program this in plain C", but "which library solves this problem for me?" It's an attitude shift. As far as resources, the library documentation for the three environments I mentioned are all good.
The best solution I think is to get a book on the topic / environment you need to catch up on.
Ask questions from developers who you know who have the experience in that area.
You can also check out news groups (Google Groups makes this easy) and forums. You can ask questions, but even reading 10 minutes of the latest popular questions for a particular topic / environment will keep you a little bit "in the know".
The same thing can go for blogs too if you can find a focussed blog. These are pretty rare though and I personally don't look to blogs to keep me "in the know" on a particular environment. (I personally find blogs most popular and interesting in the "here's something neat" or "here's how I failed and you can avoid it" or "general practice" areas.)
In addition to the answers above, I think what you are asking for will take a significant amount of your time, and you must be willing to spend that time to achieve your goals. My method would be pretty much the same as Owen's answer; get a reference book or tutorial and work through the examples hacking in changes as you go to experiment with how any given thing works. I'd say as a bare minimum, allocate a hour to do this every other day, in a time that you know you won't be interrupted. Any less, and you'll probably continue to struggle.
The best way to crash-learn is simple, simply do it, use google to search for X tutorial, open your favorite browser and start typing away. Once you reached a certain level of feeling with X, do look at other people things, there is lots of open source out there and there must be someboby who has used X before, look at how they solved certain problems and learn from this, this is an easy way to verify that you are 'on the right track' or that you're doing things or thinking in patterns that other people would define as 'common sense'.
Crash-refreshing something is much easier since you have a suspended learning curve already, the way I do this is to keep some of the example you did while writing or keep some projects you did. Then you can easily refresh and use your own examples.
The library issue you mention here well, only improving your search skills will improve that one (although looking on how others solved this will help as well)
Don't try and pick up every environment.
Focus on the one that's useful and/or interesting, and then pick a few quality blogs to regularly read or podcasts to listen to. You'll pick up the current state of the environment fairly quickly.
Concrete example: I've been out of the Java world for a long time, but I've been put on a Java project in the last few months. Since then I've listened to the Java Posse podcast and read a few blogs, and although I'm far from a Java guru I've got back up to speed without too much trouble.
Just a though. While we are working on our code we know that we need to work very hard to optimize the critical path, but on non critical path we usually don't spend to much effort to optimize.
From your description you are working 90% on embedded and 10% on rest, lets assume that in 50% of the rest you are spending more time that needed. So according to my calculation you are optimizing about 5% of your work flow ...
Of course the usual google/SO/forums search is useful before you doing something new, but investing more than just that is waste of time for my opinion, unless you want to waste some time just for fun or general education ... :), but this is another story.
By the way I'm in same position and last time i needed some GUI and used MFC (because i used it sometimes 10 years ago :) ) and i perfectly understand that i probably will get better results with C# and friends, but the learning curve just not justify this especially knowing that i need mix the C code with GUI.