4 ms·
Why? It's already an ISO/ECMA standard, and there's an existing high quality open source implementation in Mono. Microsoft has open sourced several of their m
by kvb 13y ago
Why? It's already an ISO/ECMA standard, and there's an existing high quality open source implementation in Mono. Microsoft has open sourced several of their more recent frameworks and languages, including ASP.NET MVC, F#, and TypeScript, and released free-but-not-open-source tools like the express editions of Visual Studio. How would open sourcing the CLR help?
- orbitur 13y agoExactly. Being closed isn't the problem, it's just effectively unsupported on any platform that's not Windows. Mono's nice and all, but it's not complete, and it never will be.
- moron4hire 13y agoWhat is it missing that you are missing? Mono is pretty damn complete. The stuff I've found it to be missing are very Windows-centric stuff and wouldn't fit in a Unix environment anyway.
- cookiecaper 13y agoWPF is the replacement of WinForms. Many desktop apps designed by conventional .NET developers in the timeframe between the release of Vista, and probably many now despite MS's deprecation, use WPF as a base library. It's not something you can just easily replace, and Mono does not implement it. Microsoft is using the same business tactics that they've employed since the PC wars in the 90s, since they hit critical mass of market share, just with a bit more finesse. Microsoft allows Mono's existence only because it feeds into their power play, by creating more dependency and familiarity with .NET. They make the basics open and provide some interoperability, but then lay on proprietary extras that eventually become hard dependencies organically (like WPF) as a function of Microsoft's monopolization of the market ("why wouldn't I use this tool that makes things way easier? it will work great in our environment"). It's all EEE. Microsoft's MO, then and now. Then all of the sudden, iPads exist. Xamarin is in a killer market.
- cmircea 13y agoIt's not as if WPF was the only way to make UIs for apps.
- cookiecaper 13y agoBut it was the primary, endorsed way for several years. WinForms was deprecated, and WPF was the new thing you were supposed to use.
- moron4hire 13y agoNow you're putting words into Microsoft's mouth to make your point stick. WinForms was never deprecated, WPF was never meant as a replacement for it.
- cookiecaper 13y agoMy mistake, I was under the impression that WinForms had been formally deprecated in favor of WPF. It doesn't appear to be such a rare feeling; there are 1.59 million results in Google for "WinForms deprecated". Regardless of the formal action, the clear message from MS upon release of WPF was: "This is the new official GUI builder, please use it, it should be preferred". Indication of such preferences is relevant. Or do you suggest that MS released WPF with the intention that no one would ever use it?
- moron4hire 13y agoI think they released WPF with the understanding that WinForms has very Windows-specific features that were preventing people from adopting .NET for cross-platform development. WinForms is Java AWT, WPF is Java Swing. WinForms is meant to be a basic wrapper around GDI, WPF is a completely different rendering engine separate from Windows. I think they were hoping people would choose appropriately based on their needs.
- moron4hire 13y agoThat's funny. I've been a .NET developer since it's been a thing. I don't know anyone doing WPF. That's kind of why it's deprecated.