We are in the midst of developing a large rich web app for our company based entirely on Silverlight. Silverlight is an excellent technology and everything is going well. At least, until the recent scare about Microsoft abandoning Silverlight in favor if HTML 5.

See: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-our-strategy-with-silverlight-has-shifted/7834?tag=mantle_skin;content

Now, he is an inch away from scrapping everything we have done and starting over with another technology. He is convinced that Silverlight won't go away immediatly but that it IS going to go away. And he doesn't want to risk writing our company's flagship product in a technology that Microsoft plans on dropping support for.

We need a clear message from Microsoft on this issue. It seems that we aren't the only ones.

Charles (or anyone else at Microsoft) can you provide any official insight into this issue?

The answer that is relevant to you is "it depends". HTML5 is far from being ubiquitous, and probably will never be adequately consistent across all platforms. If it absolutely has to work across all browsers, on the desktop and on mobile devices, then HTML5 might work. However, that's not going to happen for several years. You also have to ask yourself if what you are doing is easier to do in HTML5, is maintainable, and extensible enought to invest in.

Bob Muglia said it himself, Silverlight is here to stay. It is the platform for WP7, and it has a place in certain kinds of applications. Whether your application is one of those, only you can say. I personally have no qualms about keeping my stuff on Silverlight and starting new Silverlight projects. HTML is a mess, and 5 doesn't make it any better.

I've always had a fairly low threshold of pain for the special kind of torment that HTML brings. HTML is a thing from the other side of reality that is all tentacles and eyes and snapping slavering jaws belching gobbets of putrid bile. From the depths of it's writhing black form comes a hideous wail that carries with it the full force of its anguish and hate for all that is alive. Within it's wretched and blackened mind it carries a malevolent purpose. Not content to crush, destroy and burn all in it's path, it seeks to rend it's victims and extract the very soul leaving behind a desiccated and worthless husk, filled only with an eternity of sorrow.

At least that's what happens every time I get involved in an HTML based project. *shrug*

#end rant

The HTML5 is garbage IMO, just tested those demo using my HP notebook + IE9 Preview6, the helicopter game is ugly and slow, and the water boat is broken on IE9 on my notebook, completely scewed up (desktop is ok). They can blah all they like, but, I totally don't want to visit HTML5 pages using IE9 Preview6 at this stage. It is so broken and slow, I don't care what they said at all. I may be a bit more interested if they do a better job on IE10. IMO IE9 is not a good HTML5 gaming platform at all. Pointless HW acceleration with black screen. Sure...... it is the future.

I can see a lot of corporate use of Silverlight now it can be run either in the browser or on the desktop; that is a scenario that suits a large number of geographically distributed organisations.

Herbie

4 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

The HTML5 is garbage IMO, just tested those demo using my HP notebook + IE9 Preview6

Oh boy, way to make wrong conclusions.

10 hours ago, LCARSNxG wrote

Microsoft, Help!

We are in the midst of developing a large rich web app for our company based entirely on Silverlight. Silverlight is an excellent technology and everything is going well. At least, until the recent scare about Microsoft abandoning Silverlight in favor if HTML 5.

See: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-our-strategy-with-silverlight-has-shifted/7834?tag=mantle_skin;content

Now, he is an inch away from scrapping everything we have done and starting over with another technology. He is convinced that Silverlight won't go away immediatly but that it IS going to go away. And he doesn't want to risk writing our company's flagship product in a technology that Microsoft plans on dropping support for.

We need a clear message from Microsoft on this issue. It seems that we aren't the only ones.

Charles (or anyone else at Microsoft) can you provide any official insight into this issue?

WOW!

Ok folks let's start with this:

do not make key choices based on a bunch of roumers and TABLOID PRESS style news.
the only thing i see so far is that they have came to a point where Silverlight has at least 80% of what most developers and users need it to have.

so they got to the first "Peak" - looking for another word but can't spell it right now - too early.

any way ....  far from "dead" just that now they may take more time between versions and the remaining "must do features" are a shorter list and some of them are now more niche or have different techincal challenges that may not be good to do with crazy short decv cycles.

Granted I am also looking to hear what's comming.... if you notice Scott and John both are talking about the upcoming "firestarter" event that is all about silverlight. so see what that says before you go jumping off any tall buildings or other drastic actions.

Plus HTML5/CSS3 is doing some very cool stuff and is more or less designed to replace Flash (and by extension Silverlight). If I write something for HTML5 today I can be reasonably assured that that investment will be worth something in 5-10 years, Silverlight might not be installed on people's computers in that time.

Microsoft should have released Silverlight has a "free alternative to Flash" then made Windows development tools entirely free, and the framework completely open source. Problem is that Microsoft doesn't understand the nature/ecosystem of free/Open Source things (for example it doesn't accept patches, bug reports, or feedback of any kind).

Read the Joel on Software article 'Fire and Motion' for more.

33 minutes ago, Michael Butler wrote

Building any project based on what is currently the flavour of the month in Redmond is the quickest way to go insane.  Having been through the full gamut of Microsoft technology upgrades from MFC, via ATL, to Web Forms, Silverlight and ASP.NET MVC. The lesson I learned is pick the tool that best suits the job in hand and for which your development team have the skillset for. As long as you can build the end product that makes your customer happy, then you've chosen the right tool for the job.

Read the Joel on Software article 'Fire and Motion' for more.

well said. I agree with that totally.

The Firestarter even is only on December 2nd. That is more than a month's worth of misinformation that is going to be regurgitated on the web. I think in this case it would make sense for MS to have an official response sooner rather than later.

There is an incredible amount of people out there that just love to take any kind of MS-related misinformation (or lack of information), and blow it out of proportion. Unfortunately MS seems to have this habit of not addressing these kinds of PR issues properly.

6 minutes ago, BitFlipper wrote

@figuerres

The Firestarter even is only on December 2nd. That is more than a month's worth of misinformation that is going to be regurgitated on the web. I think in this case it would make sense for MS to have an official response sooner rather than later.

There is an incredible amount of people out there that just love to take any kind of MS-related misinformation (or lack of information), and blow it out of proportion. Unfortunately MS seems to have this habit of not addressing these kinds of PR issues properly.

true by and large.  I think it would be good for say Gu and or John to chime in on this...

They are still stuck in the notion that they do, just because they can.

Look at the new Channel9. It doesnt use ajax, it only uses Silverlight for the video and it's freakin awesome!

11 minutes ago, jeffsand wrote

Here's a blog post from Bob this morning, talking about Silverlight.

http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/pdc-and-silverlight/ 

And one from Tim Heuer

http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/pdc-and-silverlight/

C

It made a huge difference that Microsoft responded to squash these rumors quickly.

Time for a happy dance! Our entire dev team loves WPF and Silverlight. The thought of having to abandon it for another (inferior) solution was dreadful indeed.

"Silverlight enables great client app and media experiences. It’s now installed on two-thirds of the world’s computers, and more than 600,000 developers currently build software using it. Make no mistake; we’ll continue to invest in Silverlight and enable developers to build great apps and experiences with it in the future. " -Bob Muglia

C

That means one thing, Silverlight is no longer a priority. Of course, that doesn't sound like abandoning, however it means exactly that: it's not longer a priority.

Hearing that for Microsoft Silverlight is no longer a priority, translates by Microsoft not investing like it has from now on, on Silverlight

I know Silverlight won't die for the simple reason of WP7.

The gist of all the articles is that Silverlight is a priority, and it will be around as a first class citizen of Microsoft's development platforms for a long time to come.

Silverlight as part of the client platform = a priority

Silverlight as replacement for HTML = not a priority

to me its like this:

Silverlight = get the most out of a relatively limited set of platforms,

HTML5 = reach out to the widest range of platforms in the wild,

and WPF = get EVEN MORE out of a single platform

but HTML5 lacks a productive development story for now, not as productive as WPF/Silverlight at least.

52 minutes ago, contextfree` wrote

it looks pretty simple to me

Silverlight as part of the client platform = a priority

Silverlight as replacement for HTML = not a priority

Correct. As it always has been.

2 hours ago, contextfree` wrote

it looks pretty simple to me

Silverlight as part of the client platform = a priority

Silverlight as replacement for HTML = not a priority

Simplest, best explanation so far.

I agree. The message I'm getting is that Microsoft is adopting two platforms for the web. This is the shift in focus. Previously, Silverlight was the only platform they had to offer.

HTML 5 is great for cross platform and for making websites which include (limited) rich interactivity. HTML 5 raises the baseline of what the web is capable of. Its kind of a Tier 1 for the web.

Silverlight is Tier 2 for the web. It provides a premium experience for LOB/RIA, Media, and WP7 applications. Silverlight is great for targeting specific supported devices.

I can understand that people might be confused and think that the newest baby (HTML 5) is going to replace Silverlight. For me, recent comments from Microsoft employees have clearly explained this is not the case. My favorite comment is from Brian Goldfarb. I think he does a good job of sumarizing Microsoft's intended message:

"Silverlight is definitely alive and well and goes far beyond just WP7. I think that is pretty clear from Bob's post, but I'll reiterate it again. Silverlight will continue to be invested in across the board. It is the way to build Apps for Windows Phone 7, but it is also and will continue to be the best solution for premium media experiences and business applications both inside and outside the browser on Windows and the Mac. The key thing that has been clarified, is that we see HTML as the technolgy that gets you *everywhere*. In fact, for the broadest reach today the solution you should use is HTML4. But if want a richer, more tailored experience, on the devices and areas we support (and we are investing in this with Windows Embedded, Automotive, Desktop, Phone, and more in the future) both in and out of the browser than Silverlight was and continues to be your best solution.

Hope this helps!

-Brian Goldfarb (@bgoldy, bgold@microsoft.com)
Director, Developer Platforms
Microsoft"

15 hours ago, Turbodad wrote

*snip*

Oh boy, way to make wrong conclusions.

Sorry, I ment to say, IE9 Preview6 Sucks at HTML5 demos from their official sites using my HP laptop.

And to TP, tell your boss to expect horrifying stuff like I said, black screen for the boat demo on HP laptop ruing IE9 Preview6 and expect this persist on RTM and wide range of potentially incompatible laptops. Should the customer guychange laptop or use other browser if your appliaction experieced the similar boat demo black screen?

IMO, keep HTML as minimal as a "document", which is has been designed as it is. Every time I want something that HTML doesn't do, their answer is always the same, HTML is a document. Whever you want it interactive or not, it is still a document. And the DOM model is always weak because it is not supposed to be more than just a document.

3 hours ago, Bass wrote

I don't think most people want to make the same mistake they did when they invested in ActiveX.

 

Do you mean the ActiveX that has been supported for almost two decades across the full range of Microsoft products and a countless number of third party applications (both development tools and end user products), is the foundation of a huge number of browser plugins as well as a range of other Microsoft technologies such as ADO?

Or do you mean some other ActiveX?

If your aim was to provide an example of Microsoft abandoning a technology when the going got tough then I think you picked the worst possible one – and God knows there are plenty of better ones to choose from.

As to what's there to negate/clarify? Well just read those comments those responses received and there's a lot. I don't think this is that big deal but convincing those who do think it is could be hard now.

8 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

IMO, keep HTML as minimal as a "document", which is has been designed as it is. Every time I want something that HTML doesn't do, their answer is always the same, HTML is a document. Whever you want it interactive or not, it is still a document. And the DOM model is always weak because it is not supposed to be more than just a document.

HUH? Tell that to Google (docs, gmail), Facebook, Yahoomail, Hotmail, Microsoft Office web.

Granted, you might argue that a small shop doesn't have the resources of these companies. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be your customer if you ignore what is going on right now in the web, and you keep pushing SL. It seems you are not learning the so called "complicated" web stack because it's too hard.

It seems SL fans are dissing JavaScript/HTML4/CSS (not even 5) in an attempt to win hearts to SL. They still hope the world will come beating: "Yea, you're right. The (open) web is * for apps, we'll hire you to do our next $5M project in SL." The only prob is it's not happening. So please stop. Dissing JS or the web-stack just say something about your abilities.

Check out other technologies. Hear Douglas Crockford talk about JS. Google opened most of their web tools, look into those: GWT (yea, Java...spooky), closure lib, svgweb, many more....

BTW, the rhetoric against HTML/CSS/JS is just getting loader as SL fans are getting desperate. It started with "JS is harder then SL", then "it's POS", then "I'll rather kill myself before developing with that". Sorry for not bringing references. It should be a good read.

However, the GWT (and for F#, WebSharper) approach of compiling languages to JS itself is interesting. I'm worried that, because JS is designed to be a high-level language rather than a compiler target, it may not work as well for the latter purpose. At least, compilers targeting JS still seem to be a lot rarer than compilers targeting other platforms, which makes me wonder why. But I haven't given it serious thought, actually one of my plans for the near future is to look into this more (and delve more into studying compilers in general).

as Douglas Crockford said :

http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=crockford-yuiconf2009-state

Douglas: Yeah! So that is where the world is starting to go to run their programs. If you're writing a compiler and you're trying to translate some language into JavaScript and your language has control structures that don't map onto JavaScript's control structures, then it gets hard to write good code. They've been asking us to do things like add 'goto' to the language. Now, most of you are too young to remember but the computer industry spend 20 years trying to figure out if 'goto' was a good thing or not, and we've finally figured out that it's not and managed to eliminate it. I don't want to be bringing it back, I think that would be a terrible thing. Even if it made it easier for them, the ninjas will jump all over it and go 'oh look, I think I can make my program go faster'. Maybe they will or maybe they won't, but they'll be writing really bad code and it'll be our fault, so we don't want to do that.

Gilad Bracha mentioned a bunch more problems here, and as he said, the people who writes JS themselves and the people who writes compilers targetting JS want different things in for this language:

http://channel9.msdn.com/blogs/charles/a-conversation-with-gilad-bracha

maybe you can have a look on this IL2JS thing:

http://smp.if.uj.edu.pl/~mkol/il2js/

2 hours ago, contextfree wrote

@fanbaby: Personally, my concern is that, regardless of whether you do or don't like Javascript as a language, having only one language to develop in is a step back from other platforms that are designed such that anyone can write a compiler that converts whatever language they like (or a new, ground-breaking language they invent) to a bytecode or native code. Choice (and room for innovation) > no choice.

However, the GWT (and for F#, WebSharper) approach of compiling languages to JS itself is interesting. I'm worried that, because JS is designed to be a high-level language rather than a compiler target, it may not work as well for the latter purpose. At least, compilers targeting JS still seem to be a lot rarer than compilers targeting other platforms, which makes me wonder why. But I haven't given it serious thought, actually one of my plans for the near future is to look into this more (and delve more into studying compilers in general).

It seems GWT is working well for Google, though other then the discontinued Wave, i don't know which products use it.

Don't forget about the Closure Library, also from Google. It's a 100% javascript library geared towards big projects. Gmail uses it!! It includes a standalone minifier, you can even use it with a .net project

About JS, yes, it's NOT a class-based language like virtually all current 'normal' ones. It's a almost a lone example of prototype-based lang. Some (Crockford) say it's even useable as is

There are many things are restrictedly not avalible in DOM because it is called "Document" Object Model for a reason. Like I said, you can make a super fancy interactive document, but, it is still a document. Unless HTML commitee stop calling it a document and treat HTML as more than a document, it is still a document. For example, there is no Grid control because it is a document. You can build your own Grid, but, they are simply not as clean as the real Grid. You can do all sorts of hacks to enable rich interactive document, but, at its core, it is focused on being a document. And their mentality of HTML being a document is their decision, not mine.

Same can be said to WPF when it doesn't have enough native controls in the initial release, such as TreeMenu. Certainly everyone can make their own control, but, that's not what devs want.

10 hours ago, fanbaby wrote

*snip*

HUH? Tell that to Google (docs, gmail), Facebook, Yahoomail, Hotmail, Microsoft Office web.

Granted, you might argue that a small shop doesn't have the resources of these companies. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be your customer if you ignore what is going on right now in the web, and you keep pushing SL. It seems you are not learning the so called "complicated" web stack because it's too hard.

It seems SL fans are dissing JavaScript/HTML4/CSS (not even 5) in an attempt to win hearts to SL. They still hope the world will come beating: "Yea, you're right. The (open) web is * for apps, we'll hire you to do our next $5M project in SL." The only prob is it's not happening. So please stop. Dissing JS or the web-stack just say something about your abilities.

Check out other technologies. Hear Douglas Crockford talk about JS. Google opened most of their web tools, look into those: GWT (yea, Java...spooky), closure lib, svgweb, many more....

BTW, the rhetoric against HTML/CSS/JS is just getting loader as SL fans are getting desperate. It started with "JS is harder then SL", then "it's POS", then "I'll rather kill myself before developing with that". Sorry for not bringing references. It should be a good read.

Well said! I've been saying similar things before but not as well as you.

4 hours ago, fanbaby wrote

*snip*

It seems GWT is working well for Google, though other then the discontinued Wave, i don't know which products use it.

Don't forget about the Closure Library, also from Google. It's a 100% javascript library geared towards big projects. Gmail uses it!! It includes a standalone minifier, you can even use it with a .net project

About JS, yes, it's NOT a class-based language like virtually all current 'normal' ones. It's a almost a lone example of prototype-based lang. Some (Crockford) say it's even useable as is

The thing is because JavaScript is dynamic, you can do the same kind of OO/polymorphism and other fanciness without the boilerplate crap needed in static languages (eg: "interfaces"). People who keep asking for the "class/interface" keyword(s) in JavaScript are missing the point. I don't understand the constant sh!t talking about this language which is arguably one of simpler and powerful languages out there. Maybe because the tooling isn't as developed? Or people who just don't understand developing using dynamic languages.

I know my project uses GWT extensively and it's not because we are "scared" of JavaScript (only an idiot would be), it's because GWT allows you to make really beautiful interfaces with minimal code. It's amazing with 100 lines of code what you can do in GWT. It also integrates really well with Spring MVC and Spring Security. It also lets you reuse some of the Java code you have lying around which is nice.