Now that Microsoft Open Sourced the base of .NET with the MIT Licence...

Now that Microsoft Open Sourced the base of .NET with the MIT Licence, how do we make them to release a cross platform version of WPF? I know the current version is Direct3D based, but still.

>.NET
not even once

Do you have any reasons other than being a linuxtard? GUI development frameworks on Linux are utter shit compared to WPF and I include QT.

Never. The trend goes to web based interfaces, so write a core webapi endpoint and connect any frontend on it.
much easier that to port something that was never intended to run on anything but windows to all platforms.

The "web 100%" meme is dead. The Web technologies has severe flaws and can not just kill native applications just like that.

The main problems are

1) You can't protect your code from the public unless you turn it slow as shit (either by encryption methods or running remotely).

2) It does not fully take advantage of the hardware of the user

3) It does not fully take advantage of the OS of the user

This guy is unfortunately right. WPF will surely be ported, it makes sense from a business standpoint (unless I'm missing something) if they want to crack open the Linux market.

It's not easy at all though technologically. It's based on Direct3D. Most people aren't aware that OpenGL or Direct3D and the like are extremely low level, you can't just port stuff from them easily, the re-writing that needs is quite.

Unless they open Direct3D.

As you said, it's direct3d based. Porting that would be a very lengthy procedure, so WPF would need to be rewritten in openGL or something to get it to run on other systems.

Personally, I think it would be wiser to make some proper .NET bindings to Qt or some other cross-platform gui toolkit. I mean, the GTK bindings are already there, and multiple efforts have been made already at Qt bindings. All microsoft would need to do is assign a bunch of random folks to contribute to those projects.

It's not gonna stop people from trying anyway, even if you're right.

It might be viable to open Direct3D instead of rewriting all their shit to OpenGL.

"opening" direct3d doesn't mean shit. It just makes the source code available, it doesn't magically rewrite itself to work on all systems. And as I said, porting direct3d is one heck of a job.

>It's another "I'm too dumb for C++" episode
Sup Forums is dead

That goes without saying. If they Open it they would port it first to Mac and Linux. It's what they did with .NET base code.

C++ is not a GUI framework.

>I include QT.
nice opinion fagtron

You don't even know what WPF is do you?

You don't even know what Qt is, do you?

Surely they have some kind of abstraction. Also OpenGL (3.3+) and D3D11 aren't all that different. Also they are not extremely low level. On the contrary, OpenGL and Direct3D

Just open-sourcing D3D itself would not achieve anything. Something like D3D would need kernel/driver and hardware support. The API is already available and extremely well-documented and there have been attempts at implementing it on Linux.

The drivers already support Direct3D on windows so it would be easy. They know how to speak to the metal for OpenGL. They know how to do it for both.

>easy
yeah no. The linux graphics driver stack would probably have to be heavily modified or rewritten to support D3D.

AMD, NVIDIA and Intel have already written the top level of the Direct3D driver for windows. They have already written the low level of the OpenGL driver. It won't be that hard to them.

MS should move to Vulkan instead, is the best move they can make since that would mean one single development instead of ogl+d3d. Would take some time, tho - but it's better than wasting time with dx12+ogl/vulkan dev

fat chance. Also Microsoft generally isn't involved in the development of OpenGL and Vulkan drivers and software, that's up to the hardware/driver vendors.