2 ms·

> Personally I prefer to use their built-in stuff as much as possible. Why? Avalonia is a spiritual successor to WPF but FOSS and cross-platform.

by Rohansi 7mo ago

giancarlostoro 7mo ago
Drastically less likely to get a rug pull, licensing wouldn't really be an issue for any commercial project, and easy to sell to an employer.
- Rohansi 7mo ago
  > Drastically less likely to get a rug pull Microsoft's list of abandoned UI libraries says otherwise. > licensing wouldn't really be an issue for any commercial project It's MIT licensed. Simpler for commercial use than Qt. > easy to sell to an employer That's a tough one. For some reason employers are weird about non-Microsoft dependencies in the .NET space. It makes no sense to me personally. They likely aren't nearly as strict for web or mobile apps. But that'll definitely be a dealbreaker if your employer is like that.
  - giancarlostoro 7mo ago
    > That's a tough one. For some reason employers are weird about non-Microsoft dependencies in the .NET space. It makes no sense to me personally. They likely aren't nearly as strict for web or mobile apps. But that'll definitely be a dealbreaker if your employer is like that. We had a vendor go from "this license is fully royalty free" or whatever, to, we need to charge for all devs in your org, to then, for every single user of your app, we want to be paid. Ridiculous. The problem is companies who start getting license cost hungry and wanna squeeze every dollar out of you, when the project you're using it on might not even bring revenue.
  - orthoxerox 7mo ago
    > For some reason employers are weird about non-Microsoft dependencies in the .NET space. UI toolkits are probably the only space where a third-party vendor can challenge the MS. They can just ask the CTO how many unsupported or badly supported frameworks from Microsoft he or she can name.

> Personally I prefer to use their built-in stuff as much as possible. Why? Avalonia is a spiritual successor to WPF but FOSS and cross-platform.

by Rohansi 7mo ago

> Personally I prefer to use their built-in stuff as much as possible. Why? Avalonia is a spiritual successor to WPF but FOSS and cross-platform.

giancarlostoro 7mo ago

Drastically less likely to get a rug pull, licensing wouldn't really be an issue for any commercial project, and easy to sell to an employer.

Rohansi 7mo ago
> Drastically less likely to get a rug pull Microsoft's list of abandoned UI libraries says otherwise. > licensing wouldn't really be an issue for any commercial project It's MIT licensed. Simpler for commercial use than Qt. > easy to sell to an employer That's a tough one. For some reason employers are weird about non-Microsoft dependencies in the .NET space. It makes no sense to me personally. They likely aren't nearly as strict for web or mobile apps. But that'll definitely be a dealbreaker if your employer is like that.
- giancarlostoro 7mo ago
  > That's a tough one. For some reason employers are weird about non-Microsoft dependencies in the .NET space. It makes no sense to me personally. They likely aren't nearly as strict for web or mobile apps. But that'll definitely be a dealbreaker if your employer is like that. We had a vendor go from "this license is fully royalty free" or whatever, to, we need to charge for all devs in your org, to then, for every single user of your app, we want to be paid. Ridiculous. The problem is companies who start getting license cost hungry and wanna squeeze every dollar out of you, when the project you're using it on might not even bring revenue.
- orthoxerox 7mo ago
  > For some reason employers are weird about non-Microsoft dependencies in the .NET space. UI toolkits are probably the only space where a third-party vendor can challenge the MS. They can just ask the CTO how many unsupported or badly supported frameworks from Microsoft he or she can name.