6 ms·

The majority of people that I've heard criticize XAML are people who are just starting out with it (and hence are clueless, literally). Everyone else, includin

The majority of people that I've heard criticize XAML are people who are just starting out with it (and hence are clueless, literally). Everyone else, including myself, see it for what it is, one of the best ways to build up, iterate/change, and maintain a UI. Nothing else even comes close. edit: I write XAML mostly manually, not via a designer. I also don't subscribe to any particular rule-set about using or not-using code-behind, particular ways of databinding, etc.

candl 14y ago
I agree. I was exposed to C#/XAML a few months ago by building a WP7 Application. It takes some getting used to, but when you get the basics it's great. I'd kill to have something similar instead of HTML/CSS (which is just awful in comparison) for the web.
gbog 14y ago
Please keep your ad hominem for other parts of the web.
- powertower 14y ago
  "clue-less": without any clues about the workings and mis-workings (parts to stay away from) of XAML/WPF... Clues come from experience. And without experience, just starting out on a subject, makes you clueless about it.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    While they may be technically correct, words like "clueless", "naive", or "ignorant" can be really aggressive and feel like ad-hominem. A more constructive phrasing might have been: The majority of people that I've heard criticize XAML are people who are just starting out with it and don't fully understand what it has to offer
jinushaun 14y ago
I've been working with XAML for years on a regular basis. It sucked in 2009, and it still sucks now. It quickly progresses past hand editing on any project of any significant complexity. (Read: a real app) So Blend is required, especially if you're doing animations. VS is only slightly better than notepad for XAML. XAML parsing is consistently broken in Blend and VS, so bad markup breaks the entire file without any meaningful error message. On a related note, it is very difficult to make "Blendable" XAML files. Wiring up data-binding kills blendability. You end up opening a lot of "blank" files in the designer. MVVM is a pattern to avoid having to deal with XAML. XAML is more of a human-readable file format than a presentation markup language. You have a lot of information about the app/state mixed in with the UI markup. You need to have a solid understanding of the C# underneath to use XAML properly. Designers should NEVER be allowed to produce their own XAML, especially in Blend. It's worse than Frontpage. The cake is a lie. Designers still live in Photoshop and Illustrator. Programmers are actually the main users of Blend. The root problem is that you can't produce usable XAML without also knowing C# and the .NET Framework. In other words, you have to be a programmer to generate XAML in Blend. Fail.
- powertower 14y ago
  It does have it's bad spots, but I really don't see how something can "suck" when 1) it works and 2) every single other alternative is light-years behind.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    If you are coding and not working with designers or using Blend, sticking with plain-old C# is better. WPF/WinRT/Silverlight are just great APIs, that they are somehow associated with XAML is orthogonal (my personal opinion, not speaking for my employer).
- MartinCron 14y ago
  The root problem is that you can't produce usable XAML without also knowing C# and the .NET Framework. In other words, you have to be a programmer to generate XAML in Blend. Fail. That's like complaining about gravity or friction or taxes. Give me an example of a software tool that non-programmers can use to generate working software and I'll eat my hat.

candl 14y ago

I agree. I was exposed to C#/XAML a few months ago by building a WP7 Application. It takes some getting used to, but when you get the basics it's great. I'd kill to have something similar instead of HTML/CSS (which is just awful in comparison) for the web.

gbog 14y ago

Please keep your ad hominem for other parts of the web.

powertower 14y ago
"clue-less": without any clues about the workings and mis-workings (parts to stay away from) of XAML/WPF... Clues come from experience. And without experience, just starting out on a subject, makes you clueless about it.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  While they may be technically correct, words like "clueless", "naive", or "ignorant" can be really aggressive and feel like ad-hominem. A more constructive phrasing might have been: The majority of people that I've heard criticize XAML are people who are just starting out with it and don't fully understand what it has to offer

jinushaun 14y ago

I've been working with XAML for years on a regular basis. It sucked in 2009, and it still sucks now. It quickly progresses past hand editing on any project of any significant complexity. (Read: a real app) So Blend is required, especially if you're doing animations. VS is only slightly better than notepad for XAML. XAML parsing is consistently broken in Blend and VS, so bad markup breaks the entire file without any meaningful error message. On a related note, it is very difficult to make "Blendable" XAML files. Wiring up data-binding kills blendability. You end up opening a lot of "blank" files in the designer. MVVM is a pattern to avoid having to deal with XAML. XAML is more of a human-readable file format than a presentation markup language. You have a lot of information about the app/state mixed in with the UI markup. You need to have a solid understanding of the C# underneath to use XAML properly. Designers should NEVER be allowed to produce their own XAML, especially in Blend. It's worse than Frontpage. The cake is a lie. Designers still live in Photoshop and Illustrator. Programmers are actually the main users of Blend. The root problem is that you can't produce usable XAML without also knowing C# and the .NET Framework. In other words, you have to be a programmer to generate XAML in Blend. Fail.

powertower 14y ago
It does have it's bad spots, but I really don't see how something can "suck" when 1) it works and 2) every single other alternative is light-years behind.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  If you are coding and not working with designers or using Blend, sticking with plain-old C# is better. WPF/WinRT/Silverlight are just great APIs, that they are somehow associated with XAML is orthogonal (my personal opinion, not speaking for my employer).
MartinCron 14y ago
The root problem is that you can't produce usable XAML without also knowing C# and the .NET Framework. In other words, you have to be a programmer to generate XAML in Blend. Fail. That's like complaining about gravity or friction or taxes. Give me an example of a software tool that non-programmers can use to generate working software and I'll eat my hat.