3 ms·

I agree with this. I was skeptical about WPF at first, as I didn't like XAML at all. I'm happy I stuck with it. Under XAML is a really elegant engine that you

by m0ther 9y ago

I agree with this. I was skeptical about WPF at first, as I didn't like XAML at all. I'm happy I stuck with it. Under XAML is a really elegant engine that you can interface with directly (few of my WPF projects have any XAML in them at all). I skipped UWP for the same reasons as OP, and because you can't (as far as I have been able to figure out) distribute windows services with it. Win2D looked like an answer to a lot of my design issues, but I got a sense that the team building and maintaining it was smaller than mine. If Microsoft heavily re-invested in the desktop I would be very happy.

cm2187 9y ago
The problem of WPF in my opinion is the absence of strong typing (all binding is based on magic strings) and the fact that if you want to customise a little bit a control you are left rewriting it from scratch. WPF could be a lot better and easier to use than it is.
- m0ther 9y ago
  That binding system is XAML specific. If you bypass XAML, you bypass the magic string binding as well. I found interfaces a lot easier to build when I ditched the declarative markup and interfaced with the control system directly. XAML as far as I can tell was introduced as an attempt to woo web developers; but it's a thin layer ON TOP of WPF. It seems like a lot of people believe it IS WPF. WPF goes very deep.
  - vitorgrs 9y ago
    The same thing happens on UWP. People see XAML and thing that UWP is just that.
shoover 9y ago
I thought UWP Desktop Bridge might allow enough desktop access to support packaging a Windows service. Nope, the Bridge is not designed for that purpose and Windows services are explicitly not allowed. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/desktop-to-uwp-prepare https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/desktop... Elsewhere the docs talk about registering background tasks through another interface, but it seems like proper integration with services is a legitimate use case for people trying to embrace the blessed desktop path.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  The desktop bridge is only thought as a way to package legacy desktop applications as a stepping stone to port them into fully UWP ones. That is the workflow all Microsoft sessions about it focus on.
  - vitorgrs 9y ago
    I think you can do the other way, too! A UWP app, + Win32 project app with service, full trust capabilities declared on manifest of this project then.
vitorgrs 9y ago
You can distribute UWP services on Server, tho! I believe it's just a matter of time when it comes to Desktop, they are just being extremely cautious to implement on the right way.

by m0ther 9y ago

cm2187 9y ago

The problem of WPF in my opinion is the absence of strong typing (all binding is based on magic strings) and the fact that if you want to customise a little bit a control you are left rewriting it from scratch. WPF could be a lot better and easier to use than it is.

m0ther 9y ago
That binding system is XAML specific. If you bypass XAML, you bypass the magic string binding as well. I found interfaces a lot easier to build when I ditched the declarative markup and interfaced with the control system directly. XAML as far as I can tell was introduced as an attempt to woo web developers; but it's a thin layer ON TOP of WPF. It seems like a lot of people believe it IS WPF. WPF goes very deep.
- vitorgrs 9y ago
  The same thing happens on UWP. People see XAML and thing that UWP is just that.

shoover 9y ago

I thought UWP Desktop Bridge might allow enough desktop access to support packaging a Windows service. Nope, the Bridge is not designed for that purpose and Windows services are explicitly not allowed. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/desktop-to-uwp-prepare https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/desktop... Elsewhere the docs talk about registering background tasks through another interface, but it seems like proper integration with services is a legitimate use case for people trying to embrace the blessed desktop path.

pjmlp 9y ago
The desktop bridge is only thought as a way to package legacy desktop applications as a stepping stone to port them into fully UWP ones. That is the workflow all Microsoft sessions about it focus on.
- vitorgrs 9y ago
  I think you can do the other way, too! A UWP app, + Win32 project app with service, full trust capabilities declared on manifest of this project then.

vitorgrs 9y ago

You can distribute UWP services on Server, tho! I believe it's just a matter of time when it comes to Desktop, they are just being extremely cautious to implement on the right way.