It seems VS2012 is one of the best tools for these languages.

Personally I'd like to see a lighter, smarter syntax (e.g. not XML) for the XAML model. ASP.NET : Razor :: XAML : this.

Personally I would just output simple HTML using my own Razor Helper functions on websites. Browsers cannot even understand XAML except IE.

With XAML they can continue to have full control over all aspects of the language and make sure that it keeps up with the current needs of the platform. Anybody who complains about XAML has probably never used binding. Try that in a browser without crazy JS libraries and other complications. With HTML, they are subject to whatever the standards bodies are smoking.

I wish we would just move on from these stupid side line comments ...

I use XAML, I use WinJS, I use DirectX/Cx (very early dev thou), and I use pure Web technologies (html/css/js)  ... they are all good and have there pro's and cons and NO one technology is the magic bullet!

...  move on!

I agree with those who speak in support of XAML. Obviously those who spoke beforehand do not use it and have not gotten their expertise around it - or they'd like using it. Perhaps they have only ever written for the web, something has them half-in, half-out so there is nothing compelling use of XAML like desktop apps, real LOB enterprise apps.

Browsers suck. Whoever thought putting a LOB app there is still very wrong, imho. Deployment lightweights, the lot.

Silverlight is the only sane way to attempt to put a serious LOB on the web. Got to have state. XAML beats HTML/CSS/JS on all counts.

Why are web devs so nutty sometimes?

27 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Isn't fanbaby already identified as a nay-sayer on MS in general? What's that for?

I agree with those who speak in support of XAML. Obviously those who spoke beforehand do not use it and have not gotten their expertise around it - or they'd like using it. Perhaps they have only ever written for the web, something has them half-in, half-out so there is nothing compelling use of XAML like desktop apps, real LOB enterprise apps.

Browsers suck. Whoever thought putting a LOB app there is still very wrong, imho. Deployment lightweights, the lot.

Silverlight is the only sane way to attempt to put a serious LOB on the web. Got to have state. XAML beats HTML/CSS/JS on all counts.

Why are web devs so nutty sometimes?

well at some level it's a mix of things like EGO and how none of us want to be working on the stuff that is "old and ready to be dumped" face it .... folks want to say they are working on the new / cool stuff that is "right" like some level of "this is the one true good tech that all you others are missing out on"

some times this is a minor thing, other times it grows into a giant war....

http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Bytes+by+MSDN/Bytes-by-MSDN-Windows-8-User-Interface

I don't know if a browser canvas + javascript is ever going to be as fast as native code... I think XAML is safe for a long while

I don't have a particular preference either way. I hope we'll see some radical ideas emerge in the UI space but WPF et al are still pretty cutting edge.

19 hours ago, Minh wrote

Isn't XAML just mark-ups for filling up a UI tree? a possible native UI tree?

I don't know if a browser canvas + javascript is ever going to be as fast as native code... I think XAML is safe for a long while

it is a "markup" language but it is used for some stuff that is not really ui but the xaml helps display a graph of the data. so it's not just for ui.

Saying XAML/SIlverlight is better than HTML is like saying Esperanto is better than English.

30 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@JohnAskew:

Saying XAML/SIlverlight is better than HTML is like saying Esperanto is better than English.

"I'll take 'unqualified replies' for $100, Alex"

16 hours ago, Bass wrote

@JohnAskew:

Saying XAML/SIlverlight is better than HTML is like saying Esperanto is better than English.

 

"Bone"

EDIT: That's the Esperanto word for "all right".

16 hours ago, Bass wrote

@JohnAskew:

Saying XAML/SIlverlight is better than HTML is like saying Esperanto is better than English.

 

You are not comparing like with like, but are comparing a bicycle with a car. Yes both are vehicles, and they have their place. XAML/Silverlight isn't just better, it is superior.

I hope you weren't eating anything, as I probably induced uncontrollable choking.

Java versus .Net  ...  C# versus VB ...   C++ versus  C#  ...  Power PC big endian versus Intel little endian ...   AMD versus Intel    ARM versus both of them  ...    any more tech wars you can think of .

Apple versus MS ..  Google versus MS .. Linux versus MS ...

And all these debates talk about 1 winning and 1 losing when the truth is there is room for all of them.

5 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

And all these debates talk about 1 winning and 1 losing when the truth is there is room for all of them.

You got it -> The happiness of AND.

29 minutes ago, Charles wrote

I don't see why this debate continues to rage on - it has no meaning in the context of reality... It's been made very clear - beginning at BUILD 2011 - that this is not about This vs That. You use what you know how to use, what you want to use, as it relates to HTML5 and Windows XAML for building Windows Store Apps.

Please watch http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Bytes+by+MSDN/Bytes-by-MSDN-Windows-8-Design-Tools and start building apps in HTML or XAML, whichever you prefer!

C

IMO, it continues on because there's a lack of trust ever since Microsoft curtailed work on WPF/SL. There have been several posts here (and tons elsewhere) where developers are looking for something concrete to hang their hat on. Unfortunately the days of a nice homogeneous environment provided by Microsoft are over and we just have to get used to the fact that we'll be writing apps on a variety of platforms with a variety of languages and APIs. It's browser compatibility 10x now that devices are in the mix and web apps are "all the rage" with HTML5 and all. The dominance of the PC is over and that's too bad. Web sites, mobile web apps, native mobile apps, native W8 apps, desktop apps, and on and on; it's a headache, costs more for everyone, etc. but it's the new reality that we live in -- and IMO thanks in large part to Microsoft's decisions these last 3 or 4 years.

Do you even look beyond your narrow view of all the stuff they do at Microsoft?  They have all kinds of platforms that are useful in a wide variety of end products.   I dont think any of it will go away if Microsoft sees there is a need and gets to generate monies from it.   Just because it is not getting attention right now does not mean it is dead.   One thing I have also learned is that if what you are replacing is not better than what you have it wont make it in the market no matter how much you hype it up. 

30 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

web apps are "all the rage" with HTML5 and all.

Huh? have I slipped back in time to the mid 2000s again? Web apps were all the rage, those days are gone, have been ever since the introduction of apps on the iPhone/iPad.

1 minute ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Huh? have I slipped back in time to the mid 2000s again? Web apps were all the rage, those days are gone, have been ever since the introduction of apps on the iPhone/iPad.

Seems like many native device apps (multiple platforms of course, yeah!)  have corresponding web sites many of which are moving towards HTML5.

So for content providers (news, music, and other services) you end up having:

• Principle web site/app (lowest common denominator) that's either very ajax-y or HTML5ish
• Mobile web site/app (browser compat fun) OR
• Native device apps (one for each platform)

And if you're really lucky you have a legacy desktop app to continue to support to boot. Let's also not forget the glue that is web services, security implementation (preferably one that works singularly across your apps), and a database (cloud or otherwise).

It would be great if Apple iEverything, Android, BB, et all would just disappear so we have a more homogenous environment to work against but Microsoft lost that battle long ago. There are plenty of miss-steps here:

• Lack of development of IE
• Lack of success with tablet OS (origami, Windows tablet extensions -- more could have been done earlier here rather than being fixated on the desktop UI)
• Lack of development of WinMo (same issue as previous)
• And finally the mocking of the initial iPhone and not responding as if it were a serious threat.

Then throw on top of that pile the epic curtailment of WPF/SL with no story for LOB apps in W8 other that "re-imagine" them (oh and "skills transfer", yeah!). All-in-all it's a regular Greek tragedy.

37 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

*snip*

One thing I have also learned is that if what you are replacing is not better than what you have it wont make it in the market no matter how much you hype it up. 

I hope Microsoft will learn that lesson some day.

26 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I hope Microsoft will learn that lesson some day.

They learn that lesson alot.    Usually someone else (a competitor) has to kick them a little.  It also takes them a bit longer now then when they were a bit smaller company.   I have to agree with others that WPF/SL was and still is a good technology especially for LOB apps.

On a purely technical level, I agree. I also think Esperanto is a far technically superior language than English, but that's not the language I wrote this post in. Familiarity and standards compliance are important factors in technology decisions.

12 hours ago, Bass wrote

@vesuvius:

On a purely technical level, I agree. I also think Esperanto is a far technically superior language than English, but that's not the language I wrote this post in. Familiarity and standards compliance are important factors in technology decisions.

Wow! (this might be losely related )

The movie i linked to in the original post had really made me think that Microsoft is getting its escape route ready. That's a pretty huge investment in open standards. I am seeing this as in insurance, or hedging bets.

I don't view their increasing adoption of web technology to be all that surprising given the circumstances. Web technology is the only universal and standard way develop client side applications for the multi-platform world that exists today. To not support it is quite limiting.

1 hour ago, Bass wrote

@fanbaby:

I don't view their increasing adoption of web technology to be all that surprising given the circumstances. Web technology is the only universal and standard way develop client side applications for the multi-platform world that exists today. To not support it is quite limiting.

Really? How do I develop a client side app using "web technology" and deploy it on a Windows and a OS/X machine?

2 hours ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

Really? How do I develop a client side app using "web technology" and deploy it on a Windows and a OS/X machine?

Silly rabbit! You don't need to deploy a web app. You run it from the magical cloud via web browser.

If you really want to go "rich client" you can build a thin native app that acts as a wrapper for a web control that hosts your web app.

Isn't that what HTML5 is all about anyway?

HTML5 can be used to develop both web applications and client side applications. I was just asking how do you develop a client side application using "web technology" that is also deployable cross platform and makes use of the underlying OS functionality (OS/X keychain or Win8 contracts, for example)

55 seconds ago, PaoloM wrote

Er... no.

HTML5 can be used to develop both web applications and client side applications. I was just asking how do you develop a client side application using "web technology" that is also deployable cross platform and makes use of the underlying OS functionality (OS/X keychain or Win8 contracts, for example)

I wonder how thoroughly sandboxed a web control is on W8/OS/X? If you hook events in the web control like I did in VB6 eons ago you might be able to rig a thin client host that provides your web app with those services. Kinda like Facebook did with their Android client (and in their case it was a fail but we're taking PCs here)

From what I remember from playing with the SDK in Windows 8 CP, you cannot create libraries (i.e. the analog of CREATING a "plug-in") using Javascript. Javascript is strictly limited to front end development. IOW, it's just like with regular web applications. You cannot create plug-ins using Javascript. You can only call plug-ins from Javascript.

Not being able to create reusable class libraries is really the biggest limitation of Javascript programming in Windows 8.

At work, we are having debates about whether to stay with Windows Forms (PC only), or use XAML (mostly PC only), but in the end we will want some sort of front-end (client-server) app that can travel outside of the PC into various devices - but know that some of our apps will always stay on the PC in one form or another.  With MS changing their minds all the time, it is difficult to decide which technology to "hang our hats on", as was previously mentioned.  Because when you write something, it stays in place for years sometimes - decades even.  We want to be certain that we'll be able to support this code and not have to rewrite it every two years....

Sep 22, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Sven Groot wrote

Considering quite a lot of Visual Studio is currently written in XAML, I think it'll be around for a while.

Do you think, even for a second, that Microsoft isn't working on a web-based IDE? If it doesn't, it sure will be the odd one, since from what i'm seeing, everyone and their dog is either developing one from scratch, or creating a new one from exisiting components. e.g. http://blog.springsource.org/2012/10/11/scripted-a-javascript-editor-from-vmware/

Oh, and springsource are famous for their java tooling

5 hours ago, fanbaby wrote

Do you think, even for a second, that Microsoft isn't working on a web-based IDE? 

I think this suggestion comes from someone with their web-coloured glasses very firmly in the ON position.

Web development is frankly a small part of the Visual Studio and a small part of DevDiv at Microsoft.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

Web development is frankly a small part of the Visual Studio and a small part of DevDiv at Microsoft.

If you had to calculate a percentage of revenue generated by web tools, it would be in the 0.0n%. In fact, most companies that make money from software, tend to make no money from web apps, but it offers a useful way to supply information or get updates or whatever. Yes ecommerce is important for a lot of people that sell products, the web seems important to non-software based organisations, most of these tend to be retail or entertainment.

1 day ago, felix9 wrote

@fanbaby: Napa ?

 

Yes it's a start. The intellisense isn't up to par with vs2012. yet

Very similar to Google app script. Good luck to Microsoft with that.

1 day ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I think this suggestion comes from someone with their web-coloured glasses very firmly in the ON position.

Web development is frankly a small part of the Visual Studio and a small part of DevDiv at Microsoft.

Since felix9 just introduced me to napa and office365, i'd say that web development isn't a small part of office.