Develop Reference

Easiest way to Implement Scripting to WPF C# Visual Studio 2015

I'd like some help in how to add scripting support to a WPF C# project I'm doing on Visual Studio 2015. One of the things I'd like to do is to be able to change User Control properties within that script. I've being trying Roslyn C#, and I read some stuff about IronPython and PowerShell Tools. But, all that information is not really helping.
So, do you have a simple answer? Like, the easiest way to execute scripts in Visual Studio 2015 C# WPF Application, that are able to change properties of User Controls within the project?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Lucas.

T4 templates can help but they are less extensible than lets say Roslyn.

I found a great post on how to easily implement IronPython and how to access User Controls within the scripts in Python, so you can there change different Control properties, and even create them! Here's the link:http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/602112/Scripting-NET-Applications-with-IronPython

I think it should be quite simple to embed powershell or F# interactive in an application and there are lots of examples when we search the web for this. The question is only are we comfortable writing scripts in Powershell and F#?
In my application I provide a C# editor and compile scripts as static methods (which I uses as functions) using the standard .Net compiler API's which are installed with the framework (Microsoft.Csharp, System.CodeDom). This generates a temporary dll and perhaps can not be properly termed a script. The implementation is straight forward and more or less what you expect - I have to provide a way for the users to specify references and namespaces, then generate a source file, compile it to an assembly and then call members of the static class. This above technique works well because the application has extension points that are well adapted to user defined code with a certain well defined structure (you might have similar well defined needs and perhaps full scripting is not necessary).
On the other hand, I am considering providing a "super user" console where the application can be driven by script, and in this case, I will use either Powershell or F-sharp interactive (I'm leaning towards F#). I don't think the implementation is particularly complex, but these are things that can easily bring the application down or corrupt application data if it is not well controlled - and it is unlikely that my users will profit from scripting as it is a programmer environment.

JSIL vs Script# vs SharpKit

I'm looking at Script#, JSIL and SharpKit as a tool to use to compile C# to Javascript, so I can program the client side functions of AJAX using C# in Visual Studio.
What are the pros and cons of each JSIL, Script# and SharpKit?
My project is a MVC4 project using razor engine and C#, if it matters.

If you're looking to integrate directly with an MVC project, something like Script# or SharpKit or something is probably your best bet - I know for a fact that Script# has stuff built in to make that sort of integration easier, so I would start there.
If you do want to try using JSIL, it probably has the core features you need, but things that you might want - like visual studio integration, automated deployment, etc - are not there. At present it is primarily targeted at cross-compilation of applications, so it does a good job of that but not as good a job of other use cases.
I'll try to give a summary of reasons why you might want to consider JSIL over those other alternatives - I can't really comment on the pros and cons of those alternatives in depth since I haven't used them:
JSIL has extremely wide support for the features available in C# 4. Notable ones (either because other tools don't support them, or they're complicated) include:
dynamic, yield, Structs, ref / out, Delegates, Generics, Nullables, Interfaces, and Enums.
Some of the above, of course, don't have complete support - to get an idea of things that absolutely will work, you can look at the test cases - each one is a small self-contained .cs file that is tested to ensure that JSIL and native C# produce the same output.
The reason for this extensive support is that my goal is for JSIL to enable you to translate a completely unmodified C# application to working JS. For all the demos up on the JSIL site, this is true, and I have a few nearly finished ports of larger real games in the wings for which this is also true.
Another reason is that JSIL makes it relatively straightforward for your C# and your JavaScript to talk.
All your C# types and methods are exposed via an interface that is as javascript-friendly as possible. The JS versions have basic overload resolution and dispatch so that native C# interfaces are callable from script code as if they were native JS in most cases. You don't have to take any steps to specifically tag methods you wish to expose to JS, or give them special names, or anything like that unless you want to.
When you want to call out from C# to JS, you can do it a few ways:
JSIL.Verbatim.Expression lets you insert raw javascript directly into the translated version of a function.
JSIL.Builtins.Global can be combined with dynamic and var to write JavaScript-like code directly in your C# function bodies.
The JSReplacement attribute can be used to replace invocations of a C# function with a parameterized JavaScript expression.
All of the above features can be combined with JSIL's mechanism for altering type information, called Proxies, to allow you to alter the type information of libraries you use, even if you don't have source code, in order to map their methods to JavaScript you've written.
And finally, C# methods that aren't translated to JS produce an empty method called an External that you can then replace with JavaScript at runtime to make it work again. Any External methods that you haven't replaced produce clear warning message at runtimes so you know what's missing.
JSIL makes aggressive use of type information, along with metadata you provide, to try and safely optimize the JavaScript it generates for you. In some cases this can produce better equivalent JavaScript than you would have written by hand - the main area where this is true at present is code that uses structs, but it also can apply in other cases.
For example, in this code snippet, JSIL is able to statically determine that despite the number of struct copies implied by the code, none of the copies are actually necessary for the code to behave correctly. The resulting JavaScript ends up not having any unnecessary copies, so it runs much faster than what you'd get if you naively translated the semantics of the original C#. This is a nice middle ground between writing the naive struct-based thing (Vector2s everywhere!) and going completely nuts with named return value optimization by hand, which, as I've described in the past, is pretty error-prone.
Okay, now for some downsides. Don't consider this list exhaustive:
Large portions of the .NET BCL don't have implementations provided for you by JSIL. In the future this may be addressed by translating the entire Mono mscorlib to JavaScript, but I don't have that working well enough to advocate it as an immediate solution. (This is fine for games so far, since they don't use much of the BCL.) This issue is primarily due to the IP problems related to translating Microsoft's mscorlib - if I could do that legally, I'd be doing it right now - it worked the last time I tested it.
As mentioned above, no visual studio integration. JSIL is pretty easy to use - you can feed it a .sln file to get a bunch of .js outputs automatically, and configure it automatically with a configuration file next to the project - but it's nowhere near as polished or integrated as say, Script#.
No vendor or support staff. If you want a bug fixed yesterday or you're having issues, I'm pretty much your only bet at present (though there are a few prolific contributors helping make things better, and more are always welcome!)
JavaScript performance is a goddamn labyrinth full of invisible land mines. If you just want apps to work, you probably won't have any issues here, but if like me you're trying to make real games run fast in browsers, JavaScript will make your life hell and in some cases JSIL will make it worse. The only good thing I can say here is that I'm working on it. :)
JavaScript minifiers and optimizers like Closure are explicitly not supported, because they require your code generator to jump through a bunch of hoops. I could see this being a real blocker depending on how you intend to use your code.
The static analyzer is still kind of fragile and there are still gaps in the language support. Each big application I port using JSIL usually reveals one or two bugs in JSIL - not huge game breakers, but ones that definitely break a feature or make things run slow.
Hope this information is helpful! Thanks for your interest.

Script# pros:
Free
Open source
Generates clean JavaScript
Script# cons:
Supports a subset of C# 2.0 language only
Can be compiled only in a separate project, cannot mix / re-use code between client and server
Low frequency of version updates
Does not offer support
Limited 3rd party library support, C# API is different than JavaScript API.
Not open source
Debugging in JavaScript only
SharpKit pros:
Commercial product
Supports full C# 4.0 language
High frequency of version updates
Support is available
Client / server code can be mixed and re-used within the same project
Extensive 3rd party library support, maintained as open-source - C# API matches exactly to JavaScript API
Supports basic C# debugging for Chrome browsers
Generates clean JavaScript
SharpKit cons:
Has a free version with no time limit, but limited to small / open-source projects
Not open source (only libraries are open-source)
JSIL pros:
Free
Open-source
JSIL cons:
Converts from IL (intermediate language), not from C#, which means a lower abstraction layer since code is already low-level.
Complex generated JavaScript code - almost like IL, hard to read and debug
Answers to feedbacks:
Kevin: JSIL output is not bad, it's simply generated to achieve full .NET behavior, much like SharpKit's CLR mode. On the other hand, SharpKit supports native code generation, in which any native JavaScript code can be generated from C#, exactly as it would have written by hand.
Sample of SharpKit's clean generated JavaScript code:
http://sharpkit.net/Wiki/Using_SharpKit.wiki
Developer can choose to create more complex code generation and gain more features, like support for compile-time method overloads. When specified, SharpKit generates method suffixes to overloaded methods.
Script# requires .NET 4 in order to run, but it does not support full C# 4.0 syntax, like Generics, ref and out parameters, namespace aliases, etc...

Another alternative is WootzJs. Full Disclosure, I am its author.
WootzJs is open-source and strives to be a fairly lightweight cross-compiler that allows for all the major C# language features.
Notable Language Features Supported:
yield statements (generated as an efficient state machine)
async/await methods (generated as a state machine like the C# compiler)
ref and out parameters
expression trees
lambdas and delegates (with proper capturing of this)
generics support in both the compiler and the runtime (invalidly casting to T will throw a cast exception)
C# semantics (as opposed to Javascript semantics) for closed varaibles
It is implemented using Roslyn, which means it will be first in line to take
advantage of future language improvements, since those will now be implemented via Roslyn itself. It provides a custom version of mscorlib so you know exactly what library functionality is actually available to you in your scripts.
What Are its Downsides?
The Javascript is not intended to look "pretty". It is clearly machine generated, though individual methods should be easy to reason about by looking at them.
Because of its extensive support for core libraries and reflection, the generated output is not the smallest on the block. Minification should produce an ~100k JS file, but minification is not yet supported.
WootzJs unabashedly pollutes native types with functions to encapsulate behavior for those types that would only be found in C#. For example, all the methods of System.String are added to the native Javascript String type.
Little support for binding to 3rd-party Javascript libraries presently exist. (Currently only jQuery)
Comparisons with Other Cross-Compilers:
Script# is very stable and has extensive integration with 3rd party Javascript libraries. Furthermore, it has excellent Visual Studio integration, and it provides a custom implementation of mscorlib. This means that you know precisely what functionality has actually been implemented at the tooling level. If, for example, Console.Write() is not implemented, that method will not be available in your editor.
However, due to its custom parser, it is still stuck in C# 2.0 (without even the generics found in that version of C#). This means that the modern C# developer is giving up an enormous set of language features that most of us depend on without reservation -- particularly the aforementioned generics in addition to lambdas and LINQ. This makes Script# essentially a non-starter for many developers.
JSIL is an extremely impressive work that cross-compiles IL into Javascript. It is so robust it can easily handle the cross-compilation of large 3d video games. The downside is that because of its completeness the resultant Javascript files are enormous. If you just want mscorlib.dll and System.dll, it's about a 50MB download. Furthermore, this project is really not designed to be used in the context of a web application, and the amount of effort required to get started is a bit daunting.
This toolkit too implements a custom mscorlib, again allowing you to know what capabilities are available to you. However, it has poor Visual Studio integration, forcing you to create all the custom build steps necessary to invoke the compiler and copy the output to the desired location.
SharpKit: this commercial product strives to provide support for most of the C# 4.0 language features. It generally
succeeds and there's a decent chance this product will meet your needs. It is lightweight (small .JS files), supports modern C# language features (generics, LINQ, etc.) and is usually reliable. It also has a large number of bindings for 3rd party Javascript librarires. However, there are a surprising number of edge cases that you will invariably encounter that are not supported.
For example, the type system is shallow and does not support representing generics or arrays (i.e. typeof(Foo[]) == typeof(Bar[]), typeof(List<string>) == typeof(List<int>)). The support for reflection is limited, with various member types incapable of supporting attributes. Expression tree support is non-existent, and the yield implementation is inefficient (no state machine). Also, a custom mscorlib is not available, and script C# files and normal C# files are intermingled in your projects, forcing you to decorate each and every script file with a [JsType] attribute to distinguish them from normally compiled classes.

We have SharpKit for two years and I must say that's upgraded the way we write code.
The pros as I see them:
The code is much more structured - we can now developed infrastrcture just like we did in C# without "banging our heads" with prototype.
It is very easy to refactor
We can use Code Snippets which results in better productivity and less development time
You can control the way the JS is rendered (you have several modes to choose from).
We can debug our C# code in the browser (Currently supported on Chrome only, but still :->)
Great support! If you send them a query you get a response very fast.
Support a large number of libraries & easily extensible
The cons:
The documentation is a bit poor, however once you get a hang of it you'll boost your development.

Glad if this could help!
For ScriptSharp, this stackoverflow link could be of help.
What advantages can ScriptSharp bring to my tool kit?
If you have any SVN tool, please download a sample from https://github.com/kevingadd/JSIL, this is a working source code and can help you go miles.

Looking for a cross-platform, end-to-end example of C++ to WPF/Cocoa interoperability

First, some background:
I've decided to start a new project designed from the ground up to run on multiple platforms (Windows, iOS, OSX, Linux, Android). Since my background is mostly C++ I intend to write the core functionality using C++11. That being said, on each platform I'll need to write a platform-specific UI that can inter-operate with the C++ core.
The first platform I'm targeting is Windows (the second is iOS). I will have data stored in a SQLite database as well as user-supplied data that will be entered using a WPF DataGrid (inserting rows, manipulating existing data, etc.). This is my first time working with WPF (though I've used Windows Forms) and my first time working with C++ in a managed environment. I plan to make this an MVC-style architecture so in my mind SQLite is the Model, WPF is the View, and the C++ code is the Controller.
My question is this:
Are there any examples out there illustrating how to grab data from a C++ interface and display it using C# and WPF without destroying/mangling the C++ code itself (since it must work on multiple platforms)? I've read a tiny bit about P/Invoke (tedious, but works) and mixed assemblies (works, but will mangle my C++?) but Google hasn't been helpful when it comes to concrete examples (especially those involving populating WPF controls with data obtained via a C++ DLL).
Thanks!
EDIT: While searching for approaches to this problem I came across CXXI. I'm not very familiar with it but it seems like it may be a simple solution to my problem. Any thoughts? My grasp of all these concepts is limited.

Having worked with both XAML and WinForms, I don't think you'll find WPF to be feel much more "native" than your WinForms experience. In both cases, everything is abstracted by .Net. But if you want to learn WPF, then go for it.
P\invoke works just fine as does COM. As for other ways of getting data from C++ to other languages, consider approaching this as an IPC problem rather than a language one. Run one process as the child of the other and look at sockets and libraries such as 0mq/clrzmq (see this for 0mq on iPhone--this for Android) and Thrift to get C++ talking to the other process.
With sockets/0mq, you can use xml/json/Protobuf/Protobuf-net to serialize and deserialize objects from one language to the other. With Protobuf, you'll only need to create one set of json-esque data objects and use the langauge-specific tools for generating code. That'll take care of your data objects across platforms and languages, allowing you focus on the fun stuff. Serialization will work nicely with sql, too. All of these technologies are easy to implement and each has a score of language implementations, making it simple to wire things up to your next GUI.
In regards to examples, it all depends on how you want to move your data between the runtimes.

Creating an interactive shell for .NET apps and embed scripting languages like python/iron python into it

I was learning python using the tutorial that comes with the standard python installation. One of the benefits that the author states about python is "maybe you’ve written a program that could use an extension language, and you don’t want to design and implement a whole new language for your application" - My question is how would i go about designing a program (using c#) that can be extended using Python interactively(for this to be possible, i would imagine that i would need to create some sort of a "shell" or "interactive" mode for the .net program) ?
Are there any pointers on how to design .NET programs that have an interactive shell. I would then like to use python script in the shell to "extend" or interact with the program.
EDIT: This question partly stems from the demo give by Miguel de Icaza during PDC 2008 where he showed the interactive csharp command prompt, C# 4.0 i think also has this "compiler as a service" feature. I looked at that and thought how cool would it be to design a windows or web program in .NET that had a interactive shell.. and a scripting language like python could be used to extend the features provided by the program.
Also, i started thinking about this kind of functionality after reading one of Steve Yegge's essays where he talks about systems that live forever.

This sounds like a great use of IronPython.
It's fairly easy to set up a simple scripting host from C# to allow calls into IronPython scripts, as well as allowing IronPython to call into your C# code. There are samples and examples on the CodePlex site that show how to do this very thing.
Another good site for examples and samples is ironpython.info
And here is a page dedicated to an example answering your very question, albeit in a generic DLR-centric way -- this would allow you to host IronPython, IronRuby, or whatever DLR languages you want to support.
I've used these examples in the past to create an IronPython environment inside a private installation of ScrewTurn Wiki - it allowed me to create very expressive Wiki templates and proved to be very useful in general.

I was looking solution for the same problem, and found IronTextBox: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/edit/irontextbox2.aspx
It needs a little tuning for current versions, but seems to be everything I needed. First made it compile, and then added variables I wanted to access from shell to the scope.

Python as an extension language is called "Embedding Python".
you can call a python module from c++ by bascially calling the python intepreter and have it execute the python source. This is called embedding.
It works from C and C++, and will probably work just as well from C#.
And no, you do not need any kind of "shell". While Python can be interactive, that's not a requirement at all.

Here is a link to a blog post about adding IronRuby to script a C# application.
http://blog.jimmy.schementi.com/2008/11/adding-scripting-to-c-silverlight-app.html
The principles would also work well for using IronPython.

If your goal is to avoid learning a new language you can use CSScript.Net and embedded scripts written in C# or VB into you application. With CSScript you get full access to the CLR. Three different models of script execution are supported so that you can execute script that refers to objects in your current app domain, execute using remoting, or execute as a shell.
Currently I am using CCScript as "glue" code for configuring application objects somewhat similar to using Boo.
This link tasks you to a code project article that provides a good overview.

I don't know what you mean with
"extend" or interact with the program
so I can't answer your question. Can you give an example?
There is an open source interactive C# shell in mono: http://www.mono-project.com/CsharpRepl
When you like python, .Net and language extension, you will probably like Boo over Iron python. Boo comes with an open source interactive shell too.
I disagree with
"you don’t want to design and
implement a whole new language for
your application"
It's not as hard as it used to be to create a simple DSL. It won't take you days to implement, just hours. It might be an interesting option.

IronPython vs. C# for small-scale projects

I currently use Python for most of my programming projects (mainly rapid development of small programs and prototypes). I'd like to invest time in learning a language that gives me the flexibility to use various Microsoft tools and APIs whenever the opportunity arises. I'm trying to decide between IronPython and C#. Since Python is my favorite programming language (mainly because of its conciseness and clean syntax), IronPython sounds like the ideal option. Yet after reading about it a little bit I have several questions.
For those of you who have used IronPython, does it ever become unclear where classic Python ends and .NET begins? For example, there appears to be significant overlap in functionality between the .NET libraries and the Python standard library, so when I need to do string operations or parse XML, I'm unclear which library I'm supposed to use. Also, I'm unclear when I'm supposed to use Python versus .NET data types in my code. For example, which of the following would I be using in my code?
d = {}
or
d = System.Collections.Hashtable()
(By the way, it seems that if I do a lot of things like the latter I might lose some of the conciseness, which is why I favor Python in the first place.)
Another issue is that a number of Microsoft's developer tools, such as .NET CF and Xbox XNA, are not available in IronPython. Are there more situations where IronPython wouldn't give me the full reach of C#?

I've built a large-scale application in IronPython bound with C#.
It's almost completely seamless. The only things missing in IronPython from the true "python" feel are the C-based libraries (gotta use .NET for those) and IDLE.
The language interacts with other .NET languages like a dream... Specifically if you embed the interpreter and bind variables by reference.
By the way, a hash in IronPython is declared:
d = {}
Just be aware that it's actually an IronPython.Dict object, and not a C# dictionary. That said, the conversions often work invisibly if you pass it to a .NET class, and if you need to convert explicitly, there are built-ins that do it just fine.
All in all, an awesome language to use with .NET, if you have reason to.
Just a word of advice: Avoid the Visual Studio IronPython IDE like the plague. I found the automatic line completions screwed up on indentation, between spaces and tabs. Now -that- is a difficult-to-trace bug inserted into code.

I'd suggest taking a look at Boo [http://boo.codehaus.org/], a .NET-based language with a syntax inspired by Python, but which provides the full range of .NET 3.5 functionality.
IronPython is great for using .NET-centric libraries -- but it isn't well-suited to creating them due to underlying differences in how the languages do typing. As Boo does inference-based typing at compile time except where duck typing is explicitly requested (or a specific type is given by the user), it lets you build .NET-centric libraries easily usable from C# (and other languages') code, which IronPython isn't suitable for; also, as it has to do less introspection at runtime, Boo compiles to faster code.