4 ms·
Reading the comments, I think most of you miss actual realistic complaints of the author. 1) UWP apps are absolutely horrible to debug. They use some kind of C
by jarjoura 9y ago
Reading the comments, I think most of you miss actual realistic complaints of the author.
1) UWP apps are absolutely horrible to debug. They use some kind of COM broker layer to deliver the majority of very cryptic framework level exceptions. Almost everything IS an exception. There's also no way to get proper stack traces in compiled applications and worse, only apps delivered through the store will symbolicate the final crash point, so good luck trying to find the root cause if it's not immediately obvious.
The level of absurdity here is, if you drop a file in a UWP app's drop target that doesn't have foreground focus, the data broker will throw an exception that you can't do that. There's no realistic way to manage that exception, so if you're not diligent it'll crash your app.
2) Then there's the whole XAML interface framework. (Though they seem to slowly be moving away from this to a more reasonable flexible framework, sort of like iOS CoreAnimation, called Composition.) Originally it was meant to be freely styled by "designers", but as the original WPF and Silverlight proved, this flexibility resulted in terrible designs and apps looked cheap and crappy. So the UWP XAML team instead built a completely stylized framework and all the controls have hard-coded baked in assumptions about those styles remaining unchanged. So in that aspect, even if you wanted to push UWP XAML to allow for more information density, you would run into all kinds of show-stoppers.
- vitorgrs 9y agoThey are not moving away from XAML to Composition. Composition will be just a "backend" for XAML. Some XAML controls already use Composition and you don't even notice it.