4 ms·

I agree - Silverlight was obviously a tactical response to the threat of Flash. When Flash went into (steep) decline, there was no reason to keep Silverlight a

by chiph 13y ago

I agree - Silverlight was obviously a tactical response to the threat of Flash. When Flash went into (steep) decline, there was no reason to keep Silverlight around. Both of us called this one correctly. WCF, on the other hand, is doing really well and is a decent approach to a framework around enterprise communications. But I admit that more often than not, I'm hand-coding my proxies to avoid code-bloat from generated DTOs (I'd rather use a reference to a shared DLL so the compiler alerts me to breaking changes)

maresca 13y ago
There's something about WCF that rubs me the wrong way. I like coding Web Services. WCF just feels like bloat on top of web services. And traditional web services can be used cross-platform. I'm not sure WCF can. Maybe I'm just sticking with not fixing something that's not broken.
- ChrisPebble 13y ago
  I think the sweet spot for WCF (for us at least) is for our internal APIs. The ability to easily expose the same service over a binary TCP stream or over HTTP makes a fantastic tool when you're trying to get a lot of different systems to talk to each other. For external or HTTP-only APIs I completely agree that it's often overkill. Frameworks like servicestack are much easier to work with in those cases.
- dennisgorelik 13y ago
  Exactly: WCF == bloat. Bloat in XML, bloat in configuration, bloat in object model...