Coffeehouse Thread

20 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Silverlight, another nail in its coffin

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    sysrpl

    In the past I invested time in learning how to develop with Silverlight. I stopped when it became clear  MS was going to scrap it. They pulled The Gu away from it, Jesse the Silverlight Geek stopped working for Microsoft, and it seemed like Ballmer's "Developer's, developer's, developer's" rant was just more lip service. Microsoft develops something, promotes it to developers, then walks away and pushes the next something to replace the last something; leaving the many who invest time, effort, and money chasing Microsoft technology royally screwed.

    Microsoft killed off Silverlight.net this week. The Silverlight gallery is gone along with the Silverlight blogs, and 90% of the video training series as Microsoft prepares to kill off Siverlight.

    From the comments:

    The biggest mistake Microsoft made was to stop developing VB6. Everything after that has been a failure.

    I agree that Microsoft stopping development of VB6 was a huge mistake.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Didn't do SL myself, but killing it off feels so cold blooded.

    D

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ian2

    The new WinRT stuff is just Silverlight by another name, and closer to the metal to boot. 

    IMO it is just politics that it isn't called "Silverlight.RT" or some such.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    have to say that the way things have gone I have very little faith in Microsoft development platforms.  .net will live on in some form for a long time but anything they offer now and in the near future I will take as only good for 6 months and then it will be killed by the next buzz word.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    , Ian2 wrote

    The new WinRT stuff is just Silverlight by another name, and closer to the metal to boot. 

    IMO it is just politics that it isn't called "Silverlight.RT" or some such.

     

    I agree with Ian. I use the MVVM design pattern and find XAML of Silverlight or WPF as the main feature that I require.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @Proton2: Or ASP.NET MVC. MVVM works nicely in that environment as well.

  • User profile image
    sysrpl

    , Ian2 wrote

    The new WinRT stuff is just Silverlight by another name, and closer to the metal to boot. 

    IMO it is just politics that it isn't called "Silverlight.RT" or some such.

    Except WinRT apps don't work in a variety of browsers they only work on Windows 8, they cannot run along with the desktop, require submission and approval from Microsoft to run, and Microsoft takes 30% of any money generated from your app.

    And as far a "closer to the metal" goes, you're the first person I've heard describe Windows 8 Metro apps as "closer to the metal".

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    I don't see the point in removing reference materials, but Silverlight was never really alive.

    Every time I go back to VB6, I realize how much of .NET is pulled straight from it. All they needed to do was add full OOP and it would have been fine.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    @sysrpl: Win32 is not the future. To opine for VB6 shows your age.

    Have you become an old fart who spits the bit of new technologies out? Say it isn't so!

    A black hole will continue devouring technologies at MS until the attempt to resurrect Win32 in all of its glory is abandoned.

    I'm wired differently. I like changes in technology. They are always improvements. Nothing is perfect so I don't mind having to change horses to reach the next station. It is stimulating to learn. You'll respect yourself in the morning.

    Too many folks are OCD about technology. Too many developers spend too much time "getting comfortable" with new technolgies and too often wreck teams by holding out for their favored old technologies instead of learning new technologies -- even when the new technologies have been designed specifically for the system requirements at hand. Yuck. Yuck. Yuck. VB6? You're mad, my friend, stove pipe hot mad I say...

    Wink

     

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @sysrpl: Win32 is not the future. To opine for VB6 shows your age. 

    Au contraire.

    WinRT is just a Win32 wrapper.. just like VB6.

    , spivonious wrote

    Silverlight was never really alive.

    Not as a Flash replacement on the web, but it gained traction as LOB framework. With MS killing Silverlight, and WPF and WindowsForms being on life support, Microsoft has absolutely no credible LOB story! (or desktop applications story for that matter) That's just insane. And no, WinRT is no answer because even 1990s MFC is pure sci fi compared to it in terms of abilities.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    *snip*

    Au contraire.

    WinRT is just a Win32 wrapper.. just VB6.

    1)  VB6 != Win32   (EDIT: since you edited your post) so what?

    2) holdouts for vb6 certainly show their age. and attitude.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    *snip*

    Au contraire.

    WinRT is just a Win32 wrapper.. just like VB6.

    *snip*

    Not as a Flash replacement on the web, but it gained traction as LOB framework. With MS killing Silverlight, and WPF and WindowsForms being on life support, Microsoft has absolutely no credible LOB story! (or desktop applications story for that matter) That's just insane. And no, WinRT is no answer because 1990s MFC is pure sci fi compared to it.

    WPF is on life support? Prove it.

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    , JohnAskew wrote

    *snip*

    WPF is on life support? Prove it.

    Of course it is.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/

    Click on "Windows" there, you get this:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/default.aspx

    Hm, there is a "Desktop" item, there, you click on it and..

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/desktop/

    Stll no WPF! But: "Explore the docs about desktop app development ...Check out the Windows Development Reference for in-depth technical information about how to build desktop apps...." you click on it and.. Tada!:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/desktop/hh447209

    That's the Win32 documentation! So, the prefered way to write desktop applications is Win32 apparently. According to MSDN at least.

    I am not saying WPF is EOL, I am sure WPF applications will continue to run for a long time to come.. but Microsoft's attention level to it is barely above their attention to WinForms.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    *snip*

    Of course it is.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/

    Click on "Windows" there, you get this:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/default.aspx

    Hm, there is a "Desktop" item, there, you click on it and..

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/desktop/

    Stll no WPF! But: "Explore the docs about desktop app development ...Check out the Windows Development Reference for in-depth technical information about how to build desktop apps...." you click on it and.. Tada!:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/desktop/hh447209

    That's the Win32 documentation! So, the prefered way to write desktop applications is Win32 apparently. According to MSDN at least.

    I am not saying WPF is EOL, I am sure WPF applications will continue to run for a long time to come.. but Microsoft's attention level to it is barely above their attention to WinForms.

    Then you can safely assume that MS is at work morphing WPF to something better. And, like always, it will be backwards compatible as MS is the world leader in that department.

    I bet my career on it. Like always. And win.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    @wastingtimewithforums: Funny. Except that the "archived page" for Windows 7 is exactly the same, without any trace of WPF. Maybe it's because it's considered part of .NET?

    Let's try navigating to the .NET homepage and see if we can find WPF from there. Look, there's even a section named "What's new in WPF Version 4.5 RC". They must have killed it off and buried the corpse under a pile of new features. Makes sense.

     

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , Blue Ink wrote

    They must have killed it off and buried the corpse under a pile of new features.

    You owe me a new keyboard...

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    , Blue Ink wrote

    @wastingtimewithforums: Funny. Except that the "archived page" for Windows 7 is exactly the same, without any trace of WPF. Maybe it's because it's considered part of .NET? 

    Let's see how the MSDN frontpage looked like in 2010 (before the "re-imagined" virus):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20100711074813/http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx

    We click on "Desktop", this leads to:

    "Developing desktop applications on Windows

    Now that you know what desktop development is, watch this next video to get an overview of the Microsoft tools and technologies for desktop development, and learn about the three programming models: WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation), Silverlight, and C++ (native)."

     

    BOOM. WPF mentioned right on the frontpage of the Windows MSDN page. Now it's buried somewhere under .NET .. there isn't even a direct link on the MSDN frontpage to the .NET page you linked to.

    How about the MSDN quicklinks: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.aspx Not a trace.. (funny that even XNA is mentioned, yet no WPF)

    So, WPF got some new features? So did WinForms in 2007.. Look, I am not happy about it (my disdain for WinRT and Win8 is not a secret), just observing the obvious.

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    Silverlight was just the name of the browser plugin, which could use Xaml/C#, or Xaml/JS, etc.

    Now you have Xaml in Windows Phone x apps and Windows 8 Store apps. And Xaml is a lot easier to use than HTML5 for these types of applications. "Silverlight" plugin might be dead, but Xaml is growing, with the inclusion of new controls for WP8 like ViewportControl among others.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.