Has it come to this?
-
Chris, I think it has come to this. I couldn't believe it myself. Eventually Windows will be all managed code, except kernel and drivers. I like C#, but the absence of Native C++ coding for performance and control makes me sad. I didn't read anything yet determining support for x86 apps or not. This xaml is good for browser, but not sure for desktop apps. It seems like Microsoft is taking more and more away from the hardcore programmers. People who like nice GUI programming (VB), probably love this new direction. I guess I need to install Linux to do some C++ coding.
R.Bischoff .NET, Kommst du mit?
Soliant wrote: This xaml is good for browser, but not sure for desktop apps. I don't think xaml is any different to the .RC files we used to use before C# came along and started defining all the resources in code. It makes a lot of sense to me to keep the UI as seperate data. It makes internationalization much easier and allows programmers to hand off the UI of the apps to people with design skills. Michael 'Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.' - The Doctor: The Wheel in Space
-
Agreed, Chris. Browsers are the absolute worst form of UI in use today. X| But I imagine that it's all about money. More developers means more apps produced, which means more copies of MS products sold (Windows, VS, XML editors, books, training, certifications, and so on). This one offended me even more: Create Real Apps Using New Code and Markup Model[^]. What, is all the software I've written over the past 9 years not "real" enough for them? Please. And check out the screen shots in that one. X| I know they're silly examples, but again it shows how nasty bad UIs can be. --Mike-- Ericahist [updated Oct 26] | CP SearchBar v2.0.2 | Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber #include "witty-quote.h"
Michael Dunn wrote: What, is all the software I've written over the past 9 years not "real" enough for them? :-D I think what they were saying was, "No, this isn't word processing, these are real apps, honest! Really!! Look, they have buttons and everything!!!" Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
-
Christopher Duncan wrote: The Future (tm) appears to be a world where everything exists within a browser. No - now instead of forcing users to download software, go through an install, reboot the computer, then start our standalone .exe, we have the option to deploy through a browser. Believe it or not, more software is distributed through the net than sold off the shelf on CD-ROM. All I can say is, it's about friggen time. I've been experimenting with HREF'd .exe inside IE and it's still very akward to do. Giving developers a real option of deploying apps through the web is godsend to me. Christopher Duncan wrote: Is this just Internet trendiness? Or are they trying to dumb down programming so that anyone who can start Front Page is considered a software developer? At the current rate, computer programming and word processing are going to become synonyms. Wrong - nothing replaces sound development planning and implementation. Your argument is nothing new though; I remember hearing these same cries when VB started becoming popular. Christopher Duncan wrote: We have incredible horsepower at our disposal with the machines we run today. Instead of a massive effort to reduce programming to the point where any chimpanzee can bang on the keyboard and create a chimpanzee quality app, why can't we push the envelope in the other direction and create ever more powerful technologies to accomplish greater things, along with the tools that let intelligent and capable programmers do their jobs? Quality chimpanzee apps will never be quality apps. Why create simpler technologies? Because simpler is better! Don't like simple? Go develope a COM app in pure C. Enjoy, see ya around in 5 years, masochist. Windows development is getting easier and faster because Microsoft learned a lesson with Java: the gem that people prefer to do things the easier way. To say, "Back in my day we did things the real, tough way, real quality and real men yahda yahda" makes you sound like an old WWII vet cranking on about how things were better "back in the day." To our fortune, .Net and rapid application development is here to stay. Hop on or learn Unix. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
Judah H. wrote: To say, "Back in my day we did things the real, tough way, real quality and real men yahda yahda" makes you sound like an old WWII vet cranking on about how things were better "back in the day." :laugh: Yeah, but coding is ever so much more exciting with all those bullets whizzing past your ear and everything! :-D I'm a lazy programmer in many regards, so I have no objections to making it easier to kick out good functionality. What I object to is losing power. One of the joys of a language such as C++ is that you can wrap stuff up in high level objects to keep it simple, and yet drop down to the metal and twiddle bits if that's what the job calls for. C++ is a language that doesn't say no. I don't want MS to paint me into a corner where the languages are limited to only doing the high level stuff. One of the points I made in the upcoming book is that you should never, ever build a foolproof system. Any time you have a system so easy to work with that even an idiot can use it, you will have idiots working for you. Is that really what you want? :omg: Systems, procedures, programming languages and any other tools to get work done should not be dumbed down where they're safe and easy by removing low level power. Wrap them in easier, high level interfaces if you need to, but don't take away the horsepower. I don't want to be managed! Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
-
Chris, I think it has come to this. I couldn't believe it myself. Eventually Windows will be all managed code, except kernel and drivers. I like C#, but the absence of Native C++ coding for performance and control makes me sad. I didn't read anything yet determining support for x86 apps or not. This xaml is good for browser, but not sure for desktop apps. It seems like Microsoft is taking more and more away from the hardcore programmers. People who like nice GUI programming (VB), probably love this new direction. I guess I need to install Linux to do some C++ coding.
R.Bischoff .NET, Kommst du mit?
Soliant wrote: It seems like Microsoft is taking more and more away from the hardcore programmers. I'd venture to say that Microsoft is moving more and more away from the old way of developing: the long development processes that turn up high-quality software that runs in an unsecure environment. Instead, MS is headed for a short dev cycle that turns up quality software (provided you have quality programmers, of course :)) that run in a secure environment. Native C++ will always be there, but it won't be an ideal solution - why continue running in an unsecure environment? Performance and control are good, sure. But Longhorn will address control (managed code can dive deep down into the OS) and considering the power of today's computers and its present growth in power, speed is becoming a smaller issue by the day. In the end, .Net is the ideal solution. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
Christopher Duncan wrote: a world where everything exists within a browser. Bindows. If the browser would compile to native code, then we're all set. Come on, you sucked up to DotNet and C# quickly enough, why are you resisting this now?
Todd C. Wilson (meme@nopcode.com) NOPcode.com Skinning Toolkit MP3 Server for Windows And Lots More "The source, it was leaked : therefore, it must be rewritten."
"Bindows is a Graphical User Interface Toolkit for writing rich client side web applications with the look, feel and behavior of modern Windows applications..." But I already have the ability to create "modern Windows applications"!! (C++ compiler and the Win32 API) So now Longhorn forces me into a browser for client applications, and now I have to write a latest version windows app that requires third party code to emulate a modern Windows app, meaning what a modern app looked like in the previous version of Windows before the modern apps started looking like web browsers from 1996? Wait, hang on a second, I'm getting a little dizzy... :-D Todd C. Wilson wrote: Come on, you sucked up to DotNet and C# quickly enough C#? Nah, that's Tom's domain - I just refer those gigs to him! :-) Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
-
Judah H. wrote: To say, "Back in my day we did things the real, tough way, real quality and real men yahda yahda" makes you sound like an old WWII vet cranking on about how things were better "back in the day." :laugh: Yeah, but coding is ever so much more exciting with all those bullets whizzing past your ear and everything! :-D I'm a lazy programmer in many regards, so I have no objections to making it easier to kick out good functionality. What I object to is losing power. One of the joys of a language such as C++ is that you can wrap stuff up in high level objects to keep it simple, and yet drop down to the metal and twiddle bits if that's what the job calls for. C++ is a language that doesn't say no. I don't want MS to paint me into a corner where the languages are limited to only doing the high level stuff. One of the points I made in the upcoming book is that you should never, ever build a foolproof system. Any time you have a system so easy to work with that even an idiot can use it, you will have idiots working for you. Is that really what you want? :omg: Systems, procedures, programming languages and any other tools to get work done should not be dumbed down where they're safe and easy by removing low level power. Wrap them in easier, high level interfaces if you need to, but don't take away the horsepower. I don't want to be managed! Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
Christopher Duncan wrote: C++ is a language that doesn't say no. I see your point - I've done lots of C and C++ development in the past too so I know where you're coming from. I think that's one reason why MS isn't abolishing C++ (keeping at least managed C++) - they realize some people truely do need low-level power. So if you don't want to be managed, C++ is still there; we'll still be able to use these unmanaged apps in Longhorn I'm sure - just not in a secure context (ex deploying through the web). Of course, managed C++ is a decent alternative - you can mix managed and unmanaged code, giving you worlds of control and still have access to the .Net FCL. So I wouldn't sweat it if you're an unmanaged guy. Native C++ will still run - it's just not what MS is pushing at the moment. :) The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
I realize that a lot can change and will in the years before Longhorn hits the streets, but reading this article, A First Look at Writing and Deploying Apps in the Next Generation of Windows[^], paints a rather dim picture of the future for developers in my personal opinion. Clearly, The Future (tm) appears to be a world where everything exists within a browser. Browser based applications are and have always been clumsy at best (to be kind), but when surfing the web we live with this as an acceptable tradeoff for the power we get from the Internet. Http provides a lowest common denominator approach to let the world's various machines all view the same pages. As anyone with any road behind them knows, the lowest common denominator is always the natural enemy of high quality and innovation. And now this lowest common denominator approach wants to invade my desktop and become the defacto (or MS enforced) standard for application development? You've just got to be kidding me. I can see myself now trying to explain to the folks I work for why we should write mission critical air traffic control software in a web browser using dumbed-down markup languages. Is this just Internet trendiness? Or are they trying to dumb down programming so that anyone who can start Front Page is considered a software developer? At the current rate, computer programming and word processing are going to become synonyms. We have incredible horsepower at our disposal with the machines we run today. Instead of a massive effort to reduce programming to the point where any chimpanzee can bang on the keyboard and create a chimpanzee quality app, why can't we push the envelope in the other direction and create ever more powerful technologies to accomplish greater things, along with the tools that let intelligent and capable programmers do their jobs? Let the secretaries do the word processing. Grr. Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
I think the web is just awesome, for content, for communication. But it bites for applications. XUL (or XAML in Microsoft land) is handy for lightweight apps that make sense over an HTTP connection. But for Photoshop? For an IDE? For Half Life? Please, not a chance. I love the web and it should stick to doing what it does best. Content distribution and communication. Poor Berners would be turning in his grave if he were dead. (And I hope the other guys are right in that XAML is mainly for the interface and lightweight scripting type apps) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Christopher Duncan wrote: C++ is a language that doesn't say no. I see your point - I've done lots of C and C++ development in the past too so I know where you're coming from. I think that's one reason why MS isn't abolishing C++ (keeping at least managed C++) - they realize some people truely do need low-level power. So if you don't want to be managed, C++ is still there; we'll still be able to use these unmanaged apps in Longhorn I'm sure - just not in a secure context (ex deploying through the web). Of course, managed C++ is a decent alternative - you can mix managed and unmanaged code, giving you worlds of control and still have access to the .Net FCL. So I wouldn't sweat it if you're an unmanaged guy. Native C++ will still run - it's just not what MS is pushing at the moment. :) The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
Judah H. wrote: So I wouldn't sweat it if you're an unmanaged guy. Actually, I'm usually referred to as unmanageable, although heaven only knows why... :) Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
-
I think the web is just awesome, for content, for communication. But it bites for applications. XUL (or XAML in Microsoft land) is handy for lightweight apps that make sense over an HTTP connection. But for Photoshop? For an IDE? For Half Life? Please, not a chance. I love the web and it should stick to doing what it does best. Content distribution and communication. Poor Berners would be turning in his grave if he were dead. (And I hope the other guys are right in that XAML is mainly for the interface and lightweight scripting type apps) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
Paul Watson wrote: I think the web is just awesome, for content, for communication. But it bites for applications. Damn, and here I was holding back and being all polite-like to avoid insulting the heavy duty web guys like Paul. Just when you think you know the rules around here... :doh: Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
-
I think the web is just awesome, for content, for communication. But it bites for applications. XUL (or XAML in Microsoft land) is handy for lightweight apps that make sense over an HTTP connection. But for Photoshop? For an IDE? For Half Life? Please, not a chance. I love the web and it should stick to doing what it does best. Content distribution and communication. Poor Berners would be turning in his grave if he were dead. (And I hope the other guys are right in that XAML is mainly for the interface and lightweight scripting type apps) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
Paul Watson wrote: But for Photoshop? For an IDE? Why can't the Photoshop or VS.NET IDE user-interface be described in XML? As long as the rendering engine isn't limited by the control types it supports. Using XML defined u/i with C# assemblies plugged in to give the flexibilty that we programmers need, I don't see why it can't work. Lets face it, VB programmers have been writing their apps this way for ever. A VB form is just a text file describing the position, size and colour of controls with ActiveX providing the plugin support for new and different controls. If this kind of functionality is available straight out of the Windows box, but with the full spectrum of the .NET framework and languages. I don't see why this is going to be a bad thing at all. It's what I've been trying to write for the past few weeks on Win32, because for the vast majority of business data applications it is the way forward. Michael 'Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.' - The Doctor: The Wheel in Space
-
Judah H. wrote: So I wouldn't sweat it if you're an unmanaged guy. Actually, I'm usually referred to as unmanageable, although heaven only knows why... :) Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
:laugh: Now there's something you might have to worry about. ;) The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
I realize that a lot can change and will in the years before Longhorn hits the streets, but reading this article, A First Look at Writing and Deploying Apps in the Next Generation of Windows[^], paints a rather dim picture of the future for developers in my personal opinion. Clearly, The Future (tm) appears to be a world where everything exists within a browser. Browser based applications are and have always been clumsy at best (to be kind), but when surfing the web we live with this as an acceptable tradeoff for the power we get from the Internet. Http provides a lowest common denominator approach to let the world's various machines all view the same pages. As anyone with any road behind them knows, the lowest common denominator is always the natural enemy of high quality and innovation. And now this lowest common denominator approach wants to invade my desktop and become the defacto (or MS enforced) standard for application development? You've just got to be kidding me. I can see myself now trying to explain to the folks I work for why we should write mission critical air traffic control software in a web browser using dumbed-down markup languages. Is this just Internet trendiness? Or are they trying to dumb down programming so that anyone who can start Front Page is considered a software developer? At the current rate, computer programming and word processing are going to become synonyms. We have incredible horsepower at our disposal with the machines we run today. Instead of a massive effort to reduce programming to the point where any chimpanzee can bang on the keyboard and create a chimpanzee quality app, why can't we push the envelope in the other direction and create ever more powerful technologies to accomplish greater things, along with the tools that let intelligent and capable programmers do their jobs? Let the secretaries do the word processing. Grr. Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
Isn't that picture of the UI about the ugliest thing you've ever seen? It's hideous. It's stupid. It chews up a massive amount of precious vertical space. There isn't a chance in hell anyone in usability actually gave a stamp of approval to this nightmare. XAML is nothing but HTML on steroids and a groovy new buzzword name. This is all about writing ASP and web apps, then trying to shoehorn stand-alone client app development into the same paradigm. (Ironically, if the look and feel was so stupendously great, why didn't Office 2003 incorporate it? If .NET is the end-all of programming why can't I find a single commercial Microsoft application written in it, let alone have the same look?) Microsoft has abandoned the stand-alone application developer. MFC and WTL are not being updated and supported except by lip service. There was a time I could use MFC to create an app that had the same look and feel as Word. That ended three years ago. I don't mind .NET and think even the new crap will be useful in large corporate IT environments. But where is the support for users not involved in this relatively narrow experience? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Paul Watson wrote: But for Photoshop? For an IDE? Why can't the Photoshop or VS.NET IDE user-interface be described in XML? As long as the rendering engine isn't limited by the control types it supports. Using XML defined u/i with C# assemblies plugged in to give the flexibilty that we programmers need, I don't see why it can't work. Lets face it, VB programmers have been writing their apps this way for ever. A VB form is just a text file describing the position, size and colour of controls with ActiveX providing the plugin support for new and different controls. If this kind of functionality is available straight out of the Windows box, but with the full spectrum of the .NET framework and languages. I don't see why this is going to be a bad thing at all. It's what I've been trying to write for the past few weeks on Win32, because for the vast majority of business data applications it is the way forward. Michael 'Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.' - The Doctor: The Wheel in Space
Some crossed wires there. What I am rallying against is using the web for apps as in over an HTTP connection and having to programme like in ASP.NET with a stateless environment and roundtrips. That is not on. Even if the app is on an intranet with speed programming with roundtrips bites IMO. ASP.NET helps a lot but it is a long way from a Windows App. Describing an apps UI with XAML or XUL or HTML and CSS is something I have always wanted. I would far prefer that to wrangling with unweildy
textboxBlah.Top = 10;rubbish. So as long as XAML sticks to light scripting and UI layout then rock on. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand? -
I think the web is just awesome, for content, for communication. But it bites for applications. XUL (or XAML in Microsoft land) is handy for lightweight apps that make sense over an HTTP connection. But for Photoshop? For an IDE? For Half Life? Please, not a chance. I love the web and it should stick to doing what it does best. Content distribution and communication. Poor Berners would be turning in his grave if he were dead. (And I hope the other guys are right in that XAML is mainly for the interface and lightweight scripting type apps) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
Paul Watson wrote: And I hope the other guys are right in that XAML is mainly for the interface and lightweight scripting type apps Yep, it's for quickly throwing together a UI. It's not a new language or anything (you can't create methods and the like inside a XAML source file); it's just for describing a graphical user interface; create a button, describe its appearance, etc. That's ok by me... The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
Paul Watson wrote: And I hope the other guys are right in that XAML is mainly for the interface and lightweight scripting type apps Yep, it's for quickly throwing together a UI. It's not a new language or anything (you can't create methods and the like inside a XAML source file); it's just for describing a graphical user interface; create a button, describe its appearance, etc. That's ok by me... The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
Rock on then, going to be great for us web-devs since we already know how to develop UIs with that kind of tech. Bit of a change for Windows App developers though. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Isn't that picture of the UI about the ugliest thing you've ever seen? It's hideous. It's stupid. It chews up a massive amount of precious vertical space. There isn't a chance in hell anyone in usability actually gave a stamp of approval to this nightmare. XAML is nothing but HTML on steroids and a groovy new buzzword name. This is all about writing ASP and web apps, then trying to shoehorn stand-alone client app development into the same paradigm. (Ironically, if the look and feel was so stupendously great, why didn't Office 2003 incorporate it? If .NET is the end-all of programming why can't I find a single commercial Microsoft application written in it, let alone have the same look?) Microsoft has abandoned the stand-alone application developer. MFC and WTL are not being updated and supported except by lip service. There was a time I could use MFC to create an app that had the same look and feel as Word. That ended three years ago. I don't mind .NET and think even the new crap will be useful in large corporate IT environments. But where is the support for users not involved in this relatively narrow experience? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
>If .NET is the end-all of programming why can't I find a single commercial Microsoft application written in it Isn't Longhorn basically written in .NET? Managed code and all that? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Agreed, Chris. Browsers are the absolute worst form of UI in use today. X| But I imagine that it's all about money. More developers means more apps produced, which means more copies of MS products sold (Windows, VS, XML editors, books, training, certifications, and so on). This one offended me even more: Create Real Apps Using New Code and Markup Model[^]. What, is all the software I've written over the past 9 years not "real" enough for them? Please. And check out the screen shots in that one. X| I know they're silly examples, but again it shows how nasty bad UIs can be. --Mike-- Ericahist [updated Oct 26] | CP SearchBar v2.0.2 | Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber #include "witty-quote.h"
Here's the real insult. From the article: Here's the XAML code:
< Button Background="LightSeaGreen" FontSize="24pt"> Calculate < /Button >Here's the C# code:Button btn = new Button(); btn.Background = Brushes.LightSeaGreen; btn.FontSize = new FontSize(24, FontSizeType.Point); btn.Content = "Calculate";"As you can see, defining the object in XAML considerably simplifies the assignment of these three properties." So, instead of extending the constructor of Button(), they invent an extremely verbose markup language and claims it's shorter. Why not just have:Button btn = new Button("Calculate", Brushes.LightSeaGreen, new FontSize(24, FontSizeType.Point));Or is that just too damn obvious? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -
Paul Watson wrote: I think the web is just awesome, for content, for communication. But it bites for applications. Damn, and here I was holding back and being all polite-like to avoid insulting the heavy duty web guys like Paul. Just when you think you know the rules around here... :doh: Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
hehe. Well I am quite opposed to all the web-app shenanigins. Not something I share with most web devs. One day would be good to have a full blown discussion about it, though the non-web-dev CPians will vote it down terribly as usual. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Soliant wrote: This xaml is good for browser, but not sure for desktop apps. I don't think xaml is any different to the .RC files we used to use before C# came along and started defining all the resources in code. It makes a lot of sense to me to keep the UI as seperate data. It makes internationalization much easier and allows programmers to hand off the UI of the apps to people with design skills. Michael 'Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.' - The Doctor: The Wheel in Space
Michael P Butler wrote: don't think xaml is any different to the .RC files... Except it's a lot more verbose. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
>If .NET is the end-all of programming why can't I find a single commercial Microsoft application written in it Isn't Longhorn basically written in .NET? Managed code and all that? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
Paul Watson wrote: Isn't Longhorn basically written in .NET? Managed code and all that? No. Longhorn describes the next version of Windows. I seriously doubt Microsoft is going to get rid of all their native code. But, who knows, maybe some lunatic will decide to rewrite NTFS in managed code. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke