9 ms·
Yup. I remember 4 or 5 different frameworks that were supposed to be the future of native UI on windows, but each one after WinForms was harder to use, slower,
by solid_fuel 1y ago
Yup. I remember 4 or 5 different frameworks that were supposed to be the future of native UI on windows, but each one after WinForms was harder to use, slower, and less capable than what came before.
- Kerbiter 1y agoI disagree, WPF is quite good to use, and WinForms approach to keeping UI as code is quite moronic. I would say WPF is where it should've stopped.
- HumblyTossed 1y agoWPF sucks. I rather like expressing the UI in code. Having to deal with so much XML (XaML) is annoying as fuck.
- solid_fuel 1y agoThe workflow on WPF was so much more painful than winforms, which had a decent WYSIWYG designer and solid integration with visual studio. WPF in comparison was slow, memory hungry, and difficult to learn. I tried 5 times to make a WPF application but it didn’t even have all the same basic controls that WinForms supported.
- Quarrelsome 1y agonah WPF made way more sense than WinForm in its abstract design, as it supported flow/stack layout ideas instead of anchors like WinForm did. WinForm was much quicker to get started but had a fundamental flaw in that it couldn't really do transparency.