Entries:
Comments:
Discussions:

Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Bass Bass Knows the way the wind is flowing.
  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    , bondsbw wrote

    *snip*

    You must be looking for magic.  In any real programming exercise, you always are expected to specify all your needs.  The only thing that could be better, as Bass suggested, is to reduce the verbosity of XML.

    *snip*

    I agree that the verbosity of XAML is bad and have previously advocated for something better.

    But that syntax you suggested doesn't make sense because this isn't defining a control.  It is defining a Setter, which modifies a property of a control, in the same way that CSS styles modify HTML definitions.

    XAML control definitions are more succinct than style setters and look very similar to what you suggested.

    *snip*

    That's not inside the markup, but within a separate Style.  Like HTML+CSS, XAML has distinct ways of defining structure and layout.  But in XAML both parts are XML-based (unlike CSS which is just a completely different language).

    Cool thanks for the information. QML looks great. I'll just say the example comes off as complicated and super verbose for someone used to HTML/CSS, and it's not even very clear to me what it is doing. CSS is obvious once you get the basic syntax:

    selector { property: value; }

    It's hard to make it less complicated/verbose then that, although people have managed. Besides this simple syntax what I like is the language is rich and obvious, and it's simple to have complex effects. Like maybe make it so all single column text fields in an app have a drop shadow when hovered over by the mouse.

    input[type=text]:hover { box-shadow: 7px 7px 20px; }

    "input type text hover box-shadow" <-- These are all simple words that directly relate to the task at hand. There is almost no superfluous language at all, except maybe "box" (if I designed this, I'd just call it "shadow", and probably introduce named parameters and defaults). How do you do something similar with XAML?

    I've used Swing, WinForms, VB6 and I don't remember any UI framework making such a task so trivial. In fact it would be nearly impossible to do what CSS can do in one small line.

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    , fanbaby wrote

    @magicalclick: So the XAML language/tooling are better and easier to use then HTML/CSS/JavaScript?

    That's highly debatable. If what bondsbw posted is "XAML" it looks way too verbose (also why XML in 2016?) and just like missing any kind of thought in the design of the markup. This:

    <Setter Target="MySplitView.DisplayMode" Value="Inline" />

    Should be something like this:

    <mysplitview display="inline">

    But even then there is stuff talking about pixels and layout properties in the markup which is kinda gross to me. The whole CSS and HTML separation is something I have taken advantage of in the past, and arguably the source of HTML's device universality. It's actually a great idea and I'm surprised Microsoft didn't like steal this when they designed this XAML/UWP thing.

    Anyway I'm much more comfortable with HTML. Maybe others see a giant XML wall of AbstractPropertyCollectionFactory and get really excited. It's a personal preference and accumulated experience matters far more. 

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    These apps have unnecessarily huge widgets and UI elements that take up lots of space on a desktop.

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    i don't think he said it was a new idea; he was just explaining how it works.

    I don't think I claimed that he was claiming that it was a new idea claim...

  • DeepMind's AI masters Go

    DeepMind is going to challenge Lee Sedol next (one of the best Go players in the world).

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    , bondsbw wrote

    *snip*

    What you linked is "Auto Layout", and it appears to be roughly equivalent to the margins and padding that have been in XAML since the beginning.  No, that is not what I'm talking about.

    I'm talking about changing any part of the layout or content you want.  If the windows is less than 800epx wide, content that was layered horizontal becomes vertical.  Buttons get moved from the right to the bottom.  A sidebar of selectable content is moved into drop-down.  Description text is trimmed or eliminated.

    Sounds more like Bootstrap. Bootstrap is what ALL hipster startup websites use. Bootstrap's philosophy is mobile-first. In that they care more about providing the best usability on mobile. Maybe passable usability on desktop.

    The W10 "desktop" apps I've used so far all smell like mobile apps and generally feel like a novelty more then anything else. In fact, now that I think about it, they look and feel and generally are designed like Bootstrap-powered web pages. Now I realize that's a symptom of Microsoft adopting the Bootstrap philosophy. Unfortunately, mobile-first only makes sense when your mobile platform is dominant. Maybe that is what Microsoft was hoping for. :)

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    , svelasquez1‚Äč23 wrote

    I don't really think this steep decline in phone sales is going to be limited to MS.  The differences between generations of phones for all 3 ecosystems are getting harder to identify.  You can only come up with some new design term so many times before people get bored.  This cycle of new functionality -> techno lust -> commodity is a short one and is nearing the end for tablets and phones. 

    MS is going to be hardest hit because they are the smallest but Apple is going to be hit pretty hard as well as they do rely on hardware revenue.  Google's position is the most envious because their model is primarily service based and in many ways already very platform neutral.  MS is heading that direction now which is why you are seeing more x-platform stuff from Redmond.  In the end, the only factor that matters is which app/service, not device, is getting your screen time.

    Well Google beat revenue expectations and Apple didn't meet expectations, and that pushed Google's market cap above Apple. So it's already happening..

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    , bondsbw wrote

    @Bass:  Wait, didn't Microsoft invest in $300 million in B&N's Nook subsidiary?  I think the Nook failed due to competition.

    That money was not a charity grant. As part of the settlement, Microsoft made B&N spin off Nook into some external company that had chartered goals to bolster the Windows ecosystem and accomplish MSFT serving stuff that had nothing to do with making an awesome e-ink device. Of course Amazon steamrolled it.

    Moral of the story, if you are going to play in the tech industry don't be a B&N, be an Amazon. You need some obnoxious patents of your own to force a conventional cross-licensing deal or MAD with the Microsofts of the world.

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    , bondsbw wrote

    *snip*

    It's about choice and options.  Just because I can write one platform-independent UWP app that gets deployed everywhere, that doesn't mean I have to.  I can certainly write platform-dependent UWP apps with shared libraries if that is a better fit for my needs.

    I don't see the value at all. Like what actual problem it solves, if I want to write a desktop app and a mobile app that are similar I can already share tons of code, esp. in the Apple ecosystem.

    Anyway this whole discussion is pointless because none of this works on Android and iOS. BeOS's dev environment is far far superior to anything ever made. You might as well extol the virtues of that.

  • Microsoft Kill Off Windows Phone

    I think the patent system needs some major reform because the value of shitty/obvious/broad 'valid' patents is actually higher then innovative/non-obvious/narrow patents. It's not all one sided though, Google is currently the largest company in the world and they have a ton of their own super broad patents. And these deals end up being cross-licensing deals, where both companies license each other patents, it's not as one sided as Microsoft's press reports make it seem. The ones who really get fucked are companies that have no tech patents of their own to cross license, like Barnes and Noble who got fucked back into the stone age by Microsoft. That's the only one I'm personally irritated about, because the Nook had serious potential.