4 ms·
.NET and WPF are an abstraction of win32, I view it as a step in the right direction. How did .NET people cause everything to go downhill?
by TravHatesMe 8y ago
.NET and WPF are an abstraction of win32, I view it as a step in the right direction. How did .NET people cause everything to go downhill?
- maxxxxx 8y agoEspecially WPF is not an abstraction of Win32. Maybe Winforms could be called that but certainly not any of the XAML dialects.
- TravHatesMe 8y agoWPF is deeply integrated with Win32. For example it abstracts away the win32 message pump design. I'd call that an abstraction.
- maxxxxx 8y agoYes, it abstracts it to the extent that it doesn't resemble Win32 anymore. It's something else.
- jjaredsimpson 8y agoI would have to agree. Win32 is immediate mode, while WPF is retained scene graph. It's not an abstraction its a complete overhaul. MFC is an abstraction to me.
- maxxxxx 8y agoAs far as I know WPF is built on Direct whereas MFC and Winforms are based on Win32.
- jjaredsimpson 8y agoThat's my understanding as well. Point spy at a WPF app and you see one top level HWND which is just hosting a DX context
- contextfree 8y agoThe difference is that WinForms uses some of the actual higher-level UI widgets and layout system from Win32/USER, WPF just uses its message pump and other low-level windowing/IO routing mechanisms, and builds all its own bespoke composition, layout and controls on top of that.
- connicpu 8y agoWPF is a lot closer to an abstraction over Direct2D than Win32. If you use both of those APIs a lot, you start to realize they have a lot of classes with the same name that do the same thing.