Has it come to this?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
Yeah, I have mixed emotions. I love the power of a world wide network, but I detest HTTP/HTML as a means of getting there. Kinda like building the Golden Gate Bridge with Legos. Looks groovy, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to drive the Vette on it... Chistopher Duncan The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success
-
>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? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 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
Joe Woodbury wrote: 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. No, XAML is xml that describes a GUI. And a buzzword. :) Joe Woodbury wrote: 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?) Because you haven't searched. Parts of VS are managed, I just played around with a P2P file sharing app that was built with C# a few days ago, my company is building a large corporate data organizer in C#. Give it time, .Net will eventually outnumber unmanaged apps - it's a new technology ya know; we've only had a real IDE for about 1.5 years now. :) Joe Woodbury wrote: 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. No, Microsoft has abandoned unmanaged apps running in an insecure environment. C#, VB.Net et al build to standalone executables - it will remain that way. MS is just giving us a no-hassle deployment option via the web, which is a good thing. MFC and WTL are great technologies that have seen their prime. And now it's .Net's turn. This is a similiar situation to when DirectX replaced DOS game development during the early Win95 days. People complained of poorer performance, less control over the system resources, and they tore their clothes, fasted, and covered themselves in ashes, but in the end it was definitely a good thing. :) 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
As Michael has stated in, uh, all of his replies, this isn't quite a "convert your app to html+javascript" nightmare. Let's face it - implementing a complex, solid UI using C + Win32 isn't too difficult... but it's tedious as building a cathedral out of gravel and toothpaste. The .RC dialog definitions haven't been terribly useful since Win 3.0 - quality UIs today adapt to user's screen size and appearance preferences. Who wants to spend the time making an app look good in WinXP regardless of whether the user is using the classic theme or "Super Bubble-Gum Windows"? Of late, i've been using DHTML + MSHTML control to prototype, and even implement major portions of a UI. I can make cosmetic changes quickly and see the results without compiling, it's powerful and flexible in what it allows me to do, and get this - it keeps the UI well separated from the program logic. If it pans out, and i'm able to quickly write UIs that look good with whatever Windows funkiness is coming down the pipe, then great - i can go back to actually spending time making my programs do something.
A servant to formulaic ways.
Shog9