3 ms·
UWP is dead, luckily MS understood they want too far with it and dropped that lock-in nonsense.
by shmerl 7y ago
UWP is dead, luckily MS understood they want too far with it and dropped that lock-in nonsense.
- pjmlp 7y agoUWP is pretty much alive, that narrative keeps being spread by people that don't have any clue about Windows programming. The only thing from UWP that is dead is an UWP only store. The store, now as a mix Win32/UWP sandbox and the ongoing replacement of Win32 legacy APIs by UWP ones is pretty much alive. In fact React Native for Windows is being rewritten to use UWP APIs, using WinUI 3.0, which is also the official MFC replacement for C++ devs.
- shmerl 7y agoAlive as any MS dead end. Of course they won't just drop it, they need to support existing stuff that's using it. But MS buried their plans to make it a mandatory requirement. That's the end of it in essence. Which is good, we don't need this lock-in forced on developers.
- pjmlp 7y agoAlive as all new Windows APIs since Vista are based on COM and UWP is just a continuation of that process, as what .NET should have been all along (COM Runtime), which is something that the anti-UWP crowd fails to grasp. Win32 is the Carbon of Windows world, stuck in a Windows XP concept. If you want to write Windows applications as if targeting Windows XP, then jump of joy. There are still Apple apps being written in Carbon and Linux is stuck on the UNIX ways of yore anyway. Luddites also need to work anyway.
- shmerl 7y agoI know you are a big fan of lock-in, but you are lying to yourself, you think it's good for developers. It never is. And those who support such approach are hurting others.
- pjmlp 7y agoFrameworks, graphical debuggers and first class IDE support it is good for developers. Working with caveman tooling just in the name of some greater good, not so much.
- shmerl 7y agoLock-in isn't, which is self explanatory, which leads me to think you are on purpose just wasting time in this thread pretending that you don't understand it. It's not the first time you are defending lock-in.
- pjmlp 7y agoThat lock-in is called business trade off, which the large majority of the market prefers to compromise on. Maybe you should make a reflection why no one cares about such Quixotic endeavours, which remind me of soapbox speeches while the gaming industry just carries on business as usual.
- shmerl 7y agoIt's not a trade off. It's an anti-competitive tactic. Always puzzling when developers defend this garbage. Shills normally do it.
- pjmlp 7y agoDo you think I feel anything to be called any kind of names? I just like to explain how the gaming industry works to those without any real experience on how it works. It was my OpenGL and Linux blindness zealotry that costed me a few interviews at well known AAA studios, back when I still cared for making my mark in the industry. Still, those days left me quite a few friends that I still keep in touch with, and I got to learn what the industry actually cares about. Producing good IP to sell, using the best tools available, with support from platform owners, and ensuring good deals with publishers, eventually even movies and board games from titles. Everything else are just windmills. Now, whatever anyone learns from my comments or decides to carry on advocating practices that the industry doesn't care one second about it, it up to themselves to decide.