faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
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. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
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 ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
