Yes, I agree with this. If the OP's point was that we'll only know in retrospect what technologies lasted and that no technology is worth being overly dogmatic about, then I DO agree with that. However, I took the original statement to read more along the lines of "We don't need WPF. We can already make forms." That I must disagree with.
H
Herbrandson
@Herbrandson
Posts
-
WPF is dead? A sane voice in the madness -
WPF is dead? A sane voice in the madnessI think that's what the original comment was saying.
-
WPF is dead? A sane voice in the madnessSterling Camden / independent consultant wrote:
Difficulty hasn't changed -- the goalposts have moved
Interesting. I like that :). But don't you think that's the way software will always be? As hardware gets more powerful and abstractions make things easier for coders, the bar gets raised. No one expected animations in Win3.1 because there just wasn't enough power to do it and because it wasn't worth developers time. Today we have tools like WPF or jQuery that make animations trivial. So, the bar gets raised and users start demanding more. But that's not a bad thing. Why shouldn't users want more? I like more. The difficulty level hasn't changed for the average developer, but they're doing 10x more with the same degree of difficulty. For example, this app [plug]http://www.audioorchard.com[/plug] was built using Silverlight. Ten years ago I couldn't have written this in near the same time (if at all) with the tools that were available. I guess my point is that I like that the goalposts keep moving :). And my point to the original comment is that we're doing far more today then we did ten years ago because of a whole host of new technologies that came along. Those technologies helped move the posts. Without them, most of the software that I use every day just wouldn't exist.
-
WPF is dead? A sane voice in the madnessMaybe I misunderstand his point then :( I take his point to be: WPF is a technology that is just a different way to do something we could already do and doesn't provide any real/new value. My response to that is: Yes, I can write a WinForms app using MFC, but it's a lot easier to use .Net instead. Likewise, I can make a highly styled application in WinForms, but it's a lot easier in WPF.
-
WPF is dead? A sane voice in the madnessI couldn't disagree more :) Would you say the same thing about... .Net MFC C++ C Assembly All of these technologies _only_ allowed developers "to do the same thing developers have been doing for years".
-
Monkey BusinessI recently posted an article on The Code Project that I’m quite proud of (I won’t tell you which one it is… but it’s about monkeys). For the most part it’s done quite well. I’ve been watching with secret pride as the popularity ranking for my little monkeys slowly climbs. However, there have been at least two occasions now where one vote will knock me down several hundredths of a point, indicating that someone clearly did not like the article. This doesn’t bother me too much, but it’s breaking the poor monkey’s hearts. Therefore, I pose this question. What causes someone to give the sad mark of “1” to a perfectly harmless article? I’ll present my ideas: 1. These people misunderstand ranking systems. 2. These people have also written articles that they would like to see ranked higher then the monkeys. 3. These people simply hate monkeys. 4. These people have no appreciation for humor (or how hard it is for a computer geek to attempt to write it). 5. These people are simply jerks. With all three monkeys already unemployed, I’m afraid to think what might happen if they aren’t presented with a reasonable explanation for this injustice. Does anyone else have an explanation?