7 ms·

I'm primarily a Mac developer. From my outside perspective, the Windows framework churn looks enormous. The "best way" to write a Windows app went from Win32/MF

I'm primarily a Mac developer. From my outside perspective, the Windows framework churn looks enormous. The "best way" to write a Windows app went from Win32/MFC, to WinForms, to Silverlight and WPF, to WinRT, and still seems to be evolving. The preferred language has gone from C++ to C# to C++/C#/JavaScript(?), and now MS is pushing a UI framework that seems terribly ill-suited to what traditional desktop apps have done. On the Mac side, the story has been constant since OS X first shipped: the best way to write a Mac app is to use the Cocoa frameworks, with Objective-C. There was some churn around garbage collection, and now Swift, but overall the developer story has been much more stable than with Windows.

monstermonster 12y ago
Err we still use win32 and MFC. Plus some winforms which is a wrapper around win32 via the CLR. Not much has changed. Hell even WinRT is just a win32 wrapper. Office is a ball of win32 and MFC too. Absolutely no one is touching WinRT or WPF apart from a few trading dashboard outfits and for win phone which is fine. It'll hang around but will still sit on top of the win32 subsystem. Bear in mind there is very little difference between windows 1.0 code (1985) windows 8.1 code now. There's some 16 bit scum on the API but that's it. Mac... You forgot carbon...
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  I don't think Carbon was ever a recommended way to build OS X apps. It was basically a compatibility layer for vendors who couldn't easily rebuild their apps on Cocoa.
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  I too occasionally use MFC but my word do I hate it.
- scholia 12y ago
  > Bear in mind there is very little difference between windows 1.0 code (1985) windows 8.1 code now. There's some 16 bit scum on the API but that's it. That's like saying there's no difference between Mac OS from 1984 and Mac OS X. You're ignoring the shift from DOS-based Windows to the NT (New Technology) version which is more like VAX VMS (and had the same lead author). There were also some major changes with the introduction of .Net and the CLR.
  - monstermonster 12y ago
    Actually no. You can take a program from the "MSDOS Encyclopaedia" which contains a windows 2.0 programming section, type it out in notepad on a windows 8.1 box, compile it and it will run now like it did in 1988. I tried it. It works. That's what I'm talking about. The kernel and CLR are irrelevant. Proof: the same program works on Wine on Linux after it is compiled.
    - scholia 12y ago
      And a bran new Intel Core-M chip will execute an antique x86 instruction. So obviously that proves nothing has changed ;-)
mihaela 12y ago
I'm doing iOS now, but for Win I would choose Delphi if the price was not absurdly high. WinForms, WPF, Silverlight does not produce a self sufficent app. Qt is a great choice for Win, but about $4k per developer/year (for self sufficent app).
- blub 12y ago
  Actually I would suggest the LGPL Qt if you can use that license. And it should be about 1500 EUR per year nowadays.
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  Ever tried Lazarus and Free Pascal? That might be a cheaper route for your Delphi/Windows paradise, no?
  - mihaela 12y ago
    Cannot use Lazarus for DevExpress does not support it. Their amazing UI components and native nature of Delphi lets you build visually attractive and very fast and robust applications.
ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
Don't forget VB6!
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
That's not a fair comparison at all. You listed pre-year-2000 tech for Microsoft, but not for Apple. A fair comparison would include Apple's complete 180 from Mac OS 9 to OS X. Furthermore, Microsoft has never once said that any of those are the "best way" to write a Windows app. They may give you more choices than Apple would ever give you, but they don't say "this is the best way" to write a Windows app. Win32 is the core API of Windows and that fact hasn't changed since Windows 95. Winforms is simply a .NET wrapper around that API. You can even run pre-Windows 95 apps on Modern windows without an extremely heavy-handed emulation layer like Carbon.
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  I'd agree with millstone Every few years MS pushes a new UI framework (MFC, WTL, WinForms,WPF, WinRT, SilverLight) and abandons it after a few years. Other than Win32 which is not easy to use there really is no obvious choice which framework to use. If I had to start a new desktop app for Windows I would probably go with Qt. I would not trust MS.
  - monstermonster 12y ago
    We still use win32 with a light weight C++ abstraction we wrote ourselves (like MFC but better). It's not really complicated or hard. MFC+Win32+WinForms are equivalent with different wrappers. So is WPF/WinRT/Silverlight so that's actually only two tech platforms.
    - maxxxxx 12y ago
      I agree that going with Win32 + your own wrapper is probably best in the long run. As far as WPF/WinRT/Silverlight go, they are different enough that it's hard to exchange any code between them or port from to another.
- millstone 12y ago
  I'll concede that there was definitely more churn around the change from OS 9 to OS X. But the result was definite forward progress: the entire OS moved off of its legacy core. This was clearly a transition period, with both the legacy APIs and modern replacements clearly identified. I don't think Microsoft's churn is like that at all. Instead it seems to reflect churn in their internal strategy. They attempt transitions, but abandon them before they are complete. There's no overall trajectory. The latest is WinRT. Take a look at https://dev.windows.com/ https://dev.windows.com/ . It's all about Windows 8, Windows Runtime apps, etc. Other technologies are buried. Wouldn't you agree that MS is positioning WinRT as the new preferred way to write for Windows? (If not, their messaging is terrible.) Characterizing these development options as MS giving developers "choices" is crap. WPF developers aren't excited about having WinRT as another choice, they're worried that WPF is abandoned and their investment is obsolete. They saw it happen to Silverlight. See http://pragmateek.com/is-wpf-dead-the-present-and-future-of-wpf/ http://pragmateek.com/is-wpf-dead-the-present-and-future-of-... for example. See http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-563 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-563 too. This isn't 1998 and I'm not looking for some Mac vs PC flamewar. These are serious problems. They're making existing developers sweat, and new developers are taking a wait-and-see approach. It's hard to watch, but I'm optimistic about Nadella turning it around. Oh, and Carbon is not an emulation layer at all, nor is it "heavy handed." Perhaps you have it confused with the Classic environment?

monstermonster 12y ago

Err we still use win32 and MFC. Plus some winforms which is a wrapper around win32 via the CLR. Not much has changed. Hell even WinRT is just a win32 wrapper. Office is a ball of win32 and MFC too. Absolutely no one is touching WinRT or WPF apart from a few trading dashboard outfits and for win phone which is fine. It'll hang around but will still sit on top of the win32 subsystem. Bear in mind there is very little difference between windows 1.0 code (1985) windows 8.1 code now. There's some 16 bit scum on the API but that's it. Mac... You forgot carbon...

snowwrestler 12y ago
I don't think Carbon was ever a recommended way to build OS X apps. It was basically a compatibility layer for vendors who couldn't easily rebuild their apps on Cocoa.
72deluxe 12y ago
I too occasionally use MFC but my word do I hate it.
scholia 12y ago
> Bear in mind there is very little difference between windows 1.0 code (1985) windows 8.1 code now. There's some 16 bit scum on the API but that's it. That's like saying there's no difference between Mac OS from 1984 and Mac OS X. You're ignoring the shift from DOS-based Windows to the NT (New Technology) version which is more like VAX VMS (and had the same lead author). There were also some major changes with the introduction of .Net and the CLR.
- monstermonster 12y ago
  Actually no. You can take a program from the "MSDOS Encyclopaedia" which contains a windows 2.0 programming section, type it out in notepad on a windows 8.1 box, compile it and it will run now like it did in 1988. I tried it. It works. That's what I'm talking about. The kernel and CLR are irrelevant. Proof: the same program works on Wine on Linux after it is compiled.
  - scholia 12y ago
    And a bran new Intel Core-M chip will execute an antique x86 instruction. So obviously that proves nothing has changed ;-)

mihaela 12y ago

I'm doing iOS now, but for Win I would choose Delphi if the price was not absurdly high. WinForms, WPF, Silverlight does not produce a self sufficent app. Qt is a great choice for Win, but about $4k per developer/year (for self sufficent app).

blub 12y ago
Actually I would suggest the LGPL Qt if you can use that license. And it should be about 1500 EUR per year nowadays.
72deluxe 12y ago
Ever tried Lazarus and Free Pascal? That might be a cheaper route for your Delphi/Windows paradise, no?
- mihaela 12y ago
  Cannot use Lazarus for DevExpress does not support it. Their amazing UI components and native nature of Delphi lets you build visually attractive and very fast and robust applications.

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

Don't forget VB6!

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

That's not a fair comparison at all. You listed pre-year-2000 tech for Microsoft, but not for Apple. A fair comparison would include Apple's complete 180 from Mac OS 9 to OS X. Furthermore, Microsoft has never once said that any of those are the "best way" to write a Windows app. They may give you more choices than Apple would ever give you, but they don't say "this is the best way" to write a Windows app. Win32 is the core API of Windows and that fact hasn't changed since Windows 95. Winforms is simply a .NET wrapper around that API. You can even run pre-Windows 95 apps on Modern windows without an extremely heavy-handed emulation layer like Carbon.

maxxxxx 12y ago
I'd agree with millstone Every few years MS pushes a new UI framework (MFC, WTL, WinForms,WPF, WinRT, SilverLight) and abandons it after a few years. Other than Win32 which is not easy to use there really is no obvious choice which framework to use. If I had to start a new desktop app for Windows I would probably go with Qt. I would not trust MS.
- monstermonster 12y ago
  We still use win32 with a light weight C++ abstraction we wrote ourselves (like MFC but better). It's not really complicated or hard. MFC+Win32+WinForms are equivalent with different wrappers. So is WPF/WinRT/Silverlight so that's actually only two tech platforms.
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    I agree that going with Win32 + your own wrapper is probably best in the long run. As far as WPF/WinRT/Silverlight go, they are different enough that it's hard to exchange any code between them or port from to another.
millstone 12y ago
I'll concede that there was definitely more churn around the change from OS 9 to OS X. But the result was definite forward progress: the entire OS moved off of its legacy core. This was clearly a transition period, with both the legacy APIs and modern replacements clearly identified. I don't think Microsoft's churn is like that at all. Instead it seems to reflect churn in their internal strategy. They attempt transitions, but abandon them before they are complete. There's no overall trajectory. The latest is WinRT. Take a look at https://dev.windows.com/ https://dev.windows.com/ . It's all about Windows 8, Windows Runtime apps, etc. Other technologies are buried. Wouldn't you agree that MS is positioning WinRT as the new preferred way to write for Windows? (If not, their messaging is terrible.) Characterizing these development options as MS giving developers "choices" is crap. WPF developers aren't excited about having WinRT as another choice, they're worried that WPF is abandoned and their investment is obsolete. They saw it happen to Silverlight. See http://pragmateek.com/is-wpf-dead-the-present-and-future-of-wpf/ http://pragmateek.com/is-wpf-dead-the-present-and-future-of-... for example. See http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-563 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-563 too. This isn't 1998 and I'm not looking for some Mac vs PC flamewar. These are serious problems. They're making existing developers sweat, and new developers are taking a wait-and-see approach. It's hard to watch, but I'm optimistic about Nadella turning it around. Oh, and Carbon is not an emulation layer at all, nor is it "heavy handed." Perhaps you have it confused with the Classic environment?