Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by David Johnson on Thursday 25/Mar/2004, @12:45

You are both correct and incorrect. True, with XAML anyone can write a GUI with minimal training. But that GUI will be just a GUI. Nothing more. Without code behind it, it will be merely buttons and widgets that do nothing but look pretty. I can do the same thing with Qt Designer. Heck, I don't even need Designer, I can write my own ui file knowing only XML!

While XAML may have a few "featurettes" that Qt does not have, Qt gives you a complete easy-to-use development environment. Even if you don't know C++, you can still create the GUI. So while XAML gives you a screwdriver, Qt gives you a screwdriver, wrench, hammer and saw.

Related Links

·   Articles on Qt
·   Also by David Johnson
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by David on Thursday 25/Mar/2004, @13:55

"True, with XAML anyone can write a GUI with minimal training. But that GUI will be just a GUI. Nothing more. Without code behind it, it will be merely buttons and widgets that do nothing but look pretty."

That's what I thought. It is even more pointless than I first imagined then. Are Microsoft actually selling this crap to people?

What I don't understand is why the MSDN article is showing you the XAML code and how to write it, because you're obviously going to need an IDE for this to really work for you, so it should all be transparent really. We've already got this in Qt Designer, and it produces XML, so I just cannot comprehend the hype some people are attributing to this thing.

This was useful, if only to ram home to me how totally pointless XAML is.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by anon on Wednesday 31/Mar/2004, @14:04

Oh, please - neither of you have the first clue what XAML actually does, and the same (sadly) goes for the author of this article. I really don't like Microsoft or its products, but even having said that I have to admit their implementation of XAML is damn clever.

For your reference, the XAML code is designed to lay out GUI objects. You have this much correct - you can put in tabs, buttons, menu items, etc. All things that XML describes very well.

However, that XAML can then have scripts added to it either in a compiled language (such as C#) or a script language such as JScript. One XAML file can contain a complete application written in VBScript and XAML: both very, very easy (if somewhat verbose and slow) languages. Comparing it to C++ is very stretched, and not accurate - XAML allows you to /fully/ separate design from the code driving it (a place that Qt Designer is rapidly approaching, as opposed to the 95% separation we have now), which means developers can be beavering away in Visual Studio with their C# whilst the designers are pointing and clicking to make the GUI look nice.

As far as I'm concerned, having the GUI defined in XAML and the code written in C# makes life much easier for the Mono developers, so everyone's a winner.

Honestly: did you really think MS made a technology that did nothing but display a fancy GUI?

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by David on Saturday 03/Apr/2004, @11:51

"However, that XAML can then have scripts added to it either in a compiled language (such as C#) or a script language such as JScript. One XAML file can contain a complete application written in VBScript and XAML: both very, very easy (if somewhat verbose and slow) languages. Comparing it to C++ is very stretched, and not accurate - XAML allows you to /fully/ separate design from the code driving it (a place that Qt Designer is rapidly approaching, as opposed to the 95% separation we have now), which means developers can be beavering away in Visual Studio with their C# whilst the designers are pointing and clicking to make the GUI look nice."

Yes I did know that, and it is still rather pointless. It may be of use to Windows developers, but not to others - that was the point of the article.

"Honestly: did you really think MS made a technology that did nothing but display a fancy GUI?"

Yes, and they have.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by Erik Engheim on Wednesday 31/Mar/2004, @17:56

I got to go with Anon on this one. As much as I love Qt and usually hate microsoft tools I got to admitt that XAML is a good idea (although not completly new) and that it is not possible to compare it to Qt.

One point that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet, is that XAML allows you to use the same code for web pages as for applications. This is pretty cool in a way.

However I am one of those who think that one should not blur the distinction between the web and desktop applications like Microsoft is starting to do.

They should be treated separatly. In this respect I am not sure if XAML will be such a good idea. It might end up totally webifying all Windows applications.

I can also see that something similar should be possible to achieve with Qt without to much modification. We allready got the XML definition for the GUI. One only needs to expand it so that it can be understood by a web browser.

Lastly I think something similar to this is already possible with Java.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by David on Saturday 03/Apr/2004, @11:52

"One point that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet, is that XAML allows you to use the same code for web pages as for applications. This is pretty cool in a way. "

Where do you think this is heading?

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by Erik Engheim on Saturday 03/Apr/2004, @14:38

""One point that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet, is that XAML allows you to use the same code for web pages as for applications. This is pretty cool in a way. "

Where do you think this is heading?"

Into further webifying of the windows desktop. The distinction between web applications and desktop applications is going to be blured.

Perhaps the whole windows OS will eventually be a mixture of web services running locally and remotly. For instance that when you run regular apps like MS word, part of the functionality of the program will be provided by web services or something.

I don't like this development, but what do you think?

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"Man, that new web site is pretty nice." -- Miguel de Icaza
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.