4 ms·

I wouldn't call XAML restrictive. It's been used with WPF (their previous UI toolkit) with great effect: it can handle very complex interfaces just fine (look a

I wouldn't call XAML restrictive. It's been used with WPF (their previous UI toolkit) with great effect: it can handle very complex interfaces just fine (look at Visual Studio, it's been using WPF since 2010). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Application_Markup_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Application_Markup_... The issue is with their newer UI toolkit (WinUI) and the brain-dead design language they've been using along with that. This famous tirade is as real as it's ever been. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/

rstuart4133 4y ago
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ It's a perspective. This bit was interesting: > Think of the history of data access strategies to come out of Microsoft. ODBC, RDO, DAO, ADO, OLEDB, now ADO.NET – All New! Are these technological imperatives? The result of an incompetent design group that needs to reinvent data access every goddamn year? (That’s probably it, actually.) But the end result is just cover fire. So what's happened to the start menu is cover fire. And the point is to create illusion of progress, progress your competitors feel they have to match(?) I guess all those database access strategies cost little more than the effort to create them, because they were all thrown away in the end. But cover fire coming from the start menu has come at a cost. It's the Start Menu what finally made me decide Windows wasn't worth revisiting. Like any GUI oriented OS, you have to use the Start Menu repeatedly to get anything done. Which means it has to be fast. Yet sometimes it was taking seconds to respond. I guess that's what happens to something that gets more and more features added to it to create cover fire. It gets slow, and so bloated that most people wont' use a fraction of what it provides. Yet even though they don't use them, the features still extract their cost.

rstuart4133 4y ago

> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ It's a perspective. This bit was interesting: > Think of the history of data access strategies to come out of Microsoft. ODBC, RDO, DAO, ADO, OLEDB, now ADO.NET – All New! Are these technological imperatives? The result of an incompetent design group that needs to reinvent data access every goddamn year? (That’s probably it, actually.) But the end result is just cover fire. So what's happened to the start menu is cover fire. And the point is to create illusion of progress, progress your competitors feel they have to match(?) I guess all those database access strategies cost little more than the effort to create them, because they were all thrown away in the end. But cover fire coming from the start menu has come at a cost. It's the Start Menu what finally made me decide Windows wasn't worth revisiting. Like any GUI oriented OS, you have to use the Start Menu repeatedly to get anything done. Which means it has to be fast. Yet sometimes it was taking seconds to respond. I guess that's what happens to something that gets more and more features added to it to create cover fire. It gets slow, and so bloated that most people wont' use a fraction of what it provides. Yet even though they don't use them, the features still extract their cost.