4 ms·
We developed a number of applications on it, but found it to be very verbose, quite brittle and needlessly complex. It is brittle because XAML itself is a comp
by mgoetzke 7y ago
We developed a number of applications on it, but found it to be very verbose, quite brittle and needlessly complex.
It is brittle because XAML itself is a compiled language without the ability to step through or debug well, which means runtime errors in the object tree usually causes the entire app to crash with very abstract error messages.
it is complex because the language is supposed to be an object tree building mechanism and thus needs to be quite generic.
It is verbose because of the underlying abstracted data model. e.g dependency properties etc.
Compared to HTML, where the 'evolutionary' pressure to create a workable compromise is much higher.
I used to think XAML could be better if architected well, but the missing ecosystem and usage around it made it so, that HTML was and still is massively more productive.
- maxxxxx 7y agoThe sad thing is that XAML could be great if they just had put a little more work into it.
- osd 7y ago> which means runtime errors in the object tree usually causes the entire app to crash with very abstract error messages. This is absolutely untrue. Xaml errors can be caught like any other error, and most errors get swallowed rather than crash the application (which can cause some debugging headaches when things aren't rendering as you expect). > I used to think XAML could be better if architected well, but the missing ecosystem and usage around it made it so, that HTML was and still is massively more productive. I don't think html is massively more productive. I'm not even saying that WPF is so much better, but start debugging any reasonably large react application and you're just as likely to get into an unproductive quagmire.