3 ms·
A number of things can't be done in HTML that can be done in WPF. Since WPF has a sane architecture, you have access to a huge set of high quality UI component
by WayneDB 15y ago
A number of things can't be done in HTML that can be done in WPF.
Since WPF has a sane architecture, you have access to a huge set of high quality UI components (grids, editors, etc) that can simply be dropped into your applications. 15 years on and web developers still don't have this. The components that they do have don't follow a common object model or anything like what WPF has, so they're much harder to work with. So that is one very important quality that you simply can't have in HTML.
- kenjackson 15y agoI'm not HTML expert, but I've seen things like Wijmo and controls from Telerik that allow you to drop in jQuery UI elements just like WPF controls. They have things like grids, charts, calendars, etc... WPF does have lookless controls and triggers, but I'm not sure I'd make a dev platform choice based on that.
- WayneDB 15y agoWijmo/Telerik and others bring the web platform _slightly_ closer to the level of quality and ease of use that can be had in a desktop platform, but let's be honest...browsers really don't know the difference between a bunch of text and a bunch of advanced controls (e.g. Grids, Menus, Dialogs, etc.) and it shows, particularly in the areas of focus and selection. Also, keyboard acceleration is severely lacking in every HTML advanced component set that I've ever seen. The whole scene is just dismal compared to what can be had with a decent desktop kit IMO. I am thinking it will be another 5 years before the web really catches up, but that doesn't help me much because I'm lazy _right now_ (EDIT: meaning, I don't want to have to work that hard for all those little niceties, but I still want them).