5 ms·
So it's crappy HTML and JS underneath? I was hoping for cross-platform WPF :(.
by M8 11y ago
So it's crappy HTML and JS underneath? I was hoping for cross-platform WPF :(.
- pistle 11y agoAhhh we can dream... sigh
- JustSomeNobody 11y agoWPF?! You cannot be serious.
- WDCDev 11y agoWPF is, by far, the most pleasant and flexible thick client, windowing system out there. XAML is a bit verbose, but the binding capabilities combined with an open source MVVM framework like Caliburn allow you to build extremely flexible UIs. WPF also abstracts control behavior away from presentation and allows you to easily and quickly extend the base set of controls to do whatever you want to. After building multiple thick client applications using VB6, MFC, Swign, Winforms and WPF, WPF exceeds all of these, by far, in flexibility and maintainability.
- jaked89 11y agoI find the binding part and MVVM stuff rubbish. For me, the real value is composition flexibility.
- _random_ 11y agoAlso <grid> (as a sane alternative to <div class="table">) where you can actually align stuff exactly the way you want.
- nailer 11y agoYou know about flex box right?
- antonmaju 11y agoMicrosoft should have bought Qt when they acquired Nokia. So they have an alternative for cross platform desktop development.
- 0xFFC 11y agoThis makes sense , Microsoft does not support C for user space development , and Qt/C++ is good way to push C out from user space development in all platform's .
- Maakuth 11y agoIt wasn't there anymore, Nokia sold it's Qt business to Digia quite soon after the 2011 announcement of Windows Phone strategy.
- mwcampbell 11y agoAgreed on the crappiness of the web stack for this application. But WPF isn't necessarily better. Case in point: a Bible study program where one's choice of video card actually mattered, at least in 2009 (see http://community.logos.com/forums/t/6200.aspx http://community.logos.com/forums/t/6200.aspx). BTW, I only know about that specific example because my brother is a preacher. I think a better foundation for a cross-platform editor/IDE would be SWT, the Standard Widget Toolkit from Eclipse, perhaps ported to .NET.
- Alphasite_ 11y agoOr even IntelliJs skin and components for Swing.
- mwcampbell 11y agoDo the IntelliJ skin and components have any advantages over Eclipse's SWT in your opinion? My understanding is that Swing is much heavier. In fact, SWT was originally designed for Java 2 Micro Edition [1]. [1]: http://flylib.com/books/en/2.120.1.42/1/ http://flylib.com/books/en/2.120.1.42/1/
- billrobertson42 11y agoSwing was crap at the time, but it got significantly better.
- Shog9 11y agoAnd this is why it's web stack: there are no better alternatives. For decades of trying, this is the best we've managed to do for cross-platform UIs. It ain't great, but it soundly beats the alternatives.
- mwcampbell 11y agoI think that SWT proves that for some criteria, particularly nativeness and accessibility, it is possible to do better than the web stack while covering all major desktop platforms.
- pavlov 11y agoCross-platform WPF did exist. It was originally called "WPF/Everywhere" but eventually branded as Silverlight.