3 ms·

> Even MFC provides a better way of doing GUIs than what WinUI with C++/WinRT is giving us In what way? IIRC, MFC doesn't have dynamic layout as all of the XAM

> Even MFC provides a better way of doing GUIs than what WinUI with C++/WinRT is giving us In what way? IIRC, MFC doesn't have dynamic layout as all of the XAML-based frameworks do. That means that the typical results with MFC are definitely not better for the user, e.g. they can't take advantage of the dynamic text scaling that we introduced a few releases ago. I think the main reason for our difference of opinion about C++/WinRT is that I and my team mainly work on OS components, whereas you're doing application development using XAML. And the core OS uses its own build system, not Visual Studio's; not all of us even use Visual Studio (I use Vim and do builds from the command prompt). We definitely have a different perspective than external developers. So thanks for sharing yours. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm merely an individual developer on a team that merely consumes C++/WinRT. So I'm not speaking for the C++/WinRT team or Microsoft in general here.

pjmlp 6y ago
In the Visual Studio tooling way and not having to deal with all COM low level details in name of ISO C++ compliance. Those of us that eventually migrated to .NET were quite happy with C++/CX for dealing with those APIs that Windows team keeps resisting to expose as .NET APIs, and now that has been taken away from us. Who cares about dynamic text scaling support when one needs to climb a mountain to actually make use of it? By the way, this is a feature that is actually supported as Win32 C API, most likely because of hurdles to use it otherwise. As note, having to deal with WRL was never a consideration for the projects where my voice counted for the technology decisions, too many bad memories from ATL/WTL days. Also it remains to be seen what C#/WinRT will actually bring into the table. Really, is it so hard for the Windows team to get some Qt and C++ Builder licenses to understand how to offer productive C++ development tooling for Windows application developers? Because at the end of the day what happens are adoption failures like how the whole WinRT/UWP story ended up, and if the tooling doesn't get better, it isn't Project Reunion that will save it.

pjmlp 6y ago

In the Visual Studio tooling way and not having to deal with all COM low level details in name of ISO C++ compliance. Those of us that eventually migrated to .NET were quite happy with C++/CX for dealing with those APIs that Windows team keeps resisting to expose as .NET APIs, and now that has been taken away from us. Who cares about dynamic text scaling support when one needs to climb a mountain to actually make use of it? By the way, this is a feature that is actually supported as Win32 C API, most likely because of hurdles to use it otherwise. As note, having to deal with WRL was never a consideration for the projects where my voice counted for the technology decisions, too many bad memories from ATL/WTL days. Also it remains to be seen what C#/WinRT will actually bring into the table. Really, is it so hard for the Windows team to get some Qt and C++ Builder licenses to understand how to offer productive C++ development tooling for Windows application developers? Because at the end of the day what happens are adoption failures like how the whole WinRT/UWP story ended up, and if the tooling doesn't get better, it isn't Project Reunion that will save it.