3 ms·

Same here. Choice can be good but choice between various mediocre and short lived solutions is not fun. I wish Microsoft would commit to something on the deskto

Same here. Choice can be good but choice between various mediocre and short lived solutions is not fun. I wish Microsoft would commit to something on the desktop and keep developing it.

mwcampbell 6y ago
Microsoft has been continuously developing the same XAML UI framework since Windows 8, and now with the WinUI 3 preview [1], the latest version of that framework is available for both UWP and desktop apps, in both native code and .NET, on Windows 10 versions back to 1803 (the April 2018 update). Edit: My main point is that this framework isn't short-lived. Whether it's mediocre is naturally a matter of opinion. Disclosure: I work at Microsoft, but not in the Windows dev platform group. (I'm on the Windows accessibility team.) [1]: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2020/05/19/introducing-winui-3-preview-1/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2020/05/19/introd...
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  They have done incompatible variations of the same thing. Whatever framework you bet on since Windows 8 would be obsolete within a few years without a straightforward upgrade path. I still don’t understand why they couldn’t stick to WPF and make it better step by step but instead chose to crank out new frameworks that did almost the same.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > Microsoft has been continuously developing the same XAML UI framework since Windows 8, and now with the WinUI 3 preview [1], the latest version of that framework is available for both UWP and desktop apps, in both native code and .NET, on Windows 10 versions back to 1803 (the April 2018 update). Strange that they don't use it in all of their own projects—it seems as though most new software from Microsoft now uses Electron. Can you imagine Apple doing this? Actually, scratch that, because Catalyst has complicated the question too much—can you imagine the Apple of five years ago doing this? And that's why Mac software (of five years ago) is so visually and behaviorally consistent, and why Windows apps are not...
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Office uses it. React Native for Windows bindings are made on top of UWP/WinUI.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      Sure, but they also launched Microsoft Teams as an Electron app, and rebuilt Skype in Electron. Not to mention, the famous VS Code is Electron—you could argue Microsoft bought that one, but they've had ample time to transition it, and have not.
      - mwcampbell 6y ago
        Teams and Skype both have web versions. The Skype team even said [1] that this is why they chose React over Xamarin. Given Microsoft's recent work on React Native for Windows and Mac, I wonder if the desktop versions of Skype will transition to it and away from Electron. (I work at Microsoft, but I have no inside knowledge about this.) As for VS Code, IIRC, Microsoft also uses the editor component of VS Code in some web applications. Microsoft is not a single monolithic entity. It's reasonable for product teams to do what they believe is best for their products, even if those decisions don't align with the strategy of another product (Windows). [1]: https://microsoft.github.io/reactxp/blog/2017/04/06/introducing-reactxp.html https://microsoft.github.io/reactxp/blog/2017/04/06/introduc...
        Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        As a user, I want all the apps on my computer to behave in a consistent way. In theory, this should be possible regardless of how apps are programmed, but in practice, using a consistent UI framework appears to be a prerequisite. On my Mac, it is very obvious when an app hasn't been built with either Carbon or Cocoa. And on Windows, the overall lack of consistency across everything is equally obvious. Now, Microsoft is not all app developers—but they could set an example for how developers should be approaching the Windows platform. And from where I sit, they're setting a bad example at the moment. If it's really necessary for Microsoft Teams to be using Electron while Office uses UWP, those teams should be making a huge push for consistency in terms of what's user visible. They either (A) are not trying (B) are doing a bad job or (C) it's just nearly impossible to use completely different libraries and have the UX match. (If anyone knows of a counterexample, where apps using different frontend technologies achieved visual and UX unity, please let me know! It's possible my underlying thesis is wrong.)

Same here. Choice can be good but choice between various mediocre and short lived solutions is not fun. I wish Microsoft would commit to something on the desktop and keep developing it.

mwcampbell 6y ago

Microsoft has been continuously developing the same XAML UI framework since Windows 8, and now with the WinUI 3 preview [1], the latest version of that framework is available for both UWP and desktop apps, in both native code and .NET, on Windows 10 versions back to 1803 (the April 2018 update). Edit: My main point is that this framework isn't short-lived. Whether it's mediocre is naturally a matter of opinion. Disclosure: I work at Microsoft, but not in the Windows dev platform group. (I'm on the Windows accessibility team.) [1]: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2020/05/19/introducing-winui-3-preview-1/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2020/05/19/introd...

Ididntdothis 6y ago
They have done incompatible variations of the same thing. Whatever framework you bet on since Windows 8 would be obsolete within a few years without a straightforward upgrade path. I still don’t understand why they couldn’t stick to WPF and make it better step by step but instead chose to crank out new frameworks that did almost the same.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> Microsoft has been continuously developing the same XAML UI framework since Windows 8, and now with the WinUI 3 preview [1], the latest version of that framework is available for both UWP and desktop apps, in both native code and .NET, on Windows 10 versions back to 1803 (the April 2018 update). Strange that they don't use it in all of their own projects—it seems as though most new software from Microsoft now uses Electron. Can you imagine Apple doing this? Actually, scratch that, because Catalyst has complicated the question too much—can you imagine the Apple of five years ago doing this? And that's why Mac software (of five years ago) is so visually and behaviorally consistent, and why Windows apps are not...
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Office uses it. React Native for Windows bindings are made on top of UWP/WinUI.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Sure, but they also launched Microsoft Teams as an Electron app, and rebuilt Skype in Electron. Not to mention, the famous VS Code is Electron—you could argue Microsoft bought that one, but they've had ample time to transition it, and have not.
    - mwcampbell 6y ago
      Teams and Skype both have web versions. The Skype team even said [1] that this is why they chose React over Xamarin. Given Microsoft's recent work on React Native for Windows and Mac, I wonder if the desktop versions of Skype will transition to it and away from Electron. (I work at Microsoft, but I have no inside knowledge about this.) As for VS Code, IIRC, Microsoft also uses the editor component of VS Code in some web applications. Microsoft is not a single monolithic entity. It's reasonable for product teams to do what they believe is best for their products, even if those decisions don't align with the strategy of another product (Windows). [1]: https://microsoft.github.io/reactxp/blog/2017/04/06/introducing-reactxp.html https://microsoft.github.io/reactxp/blog/2017/04/06/introduc...
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        As a user, I want all the apps on my computer to behave in a consistent way. In theory, this should be possible regardless of how apps are programmed, but in practice, using a consistent UI framework appears to be a prerequisite. On my Mac, it is very obvious when an app hasn't been built with either Carbon or Cocoa. And on Windows, the overall lack of consistency across everything is equally obvious. Now, Microsoft is not all app developers—but they could set an example for how developers should be approaching the Windows platform. And from where I sit, they're setting a bad example at the moment. If it's really necessary for Microsoft Teams to be using Electron while Office uses UWP, those teams should be making a huge push for consistency in terms of what's user visible. They either (A) are not trying (B) are doing a bad job or (C) it's just nearly impossible to use completely different libraries and have the UX match. (If anyone knows of a counterexample, where apps using different frontend technologies achieved visual and UX unity, please let me know! It's possible my underlying thesis is wrong.)