Learn XAML on the WPF. It's fucking amazing. You will hate your fucking life to learn the basics, you will want to kill yourself to learn the intermediates but then you will find enlightnement.
To be honest, the world needed that language. The programming world was too easy. We were too much into the PHPs and the Perls and the Pythons and the HTMLs.
Bring back the languages that burn your brain to learn them for the first time. C pointers, Assembler code, fucking XAML.
Been there, done that, it's crap.
Did you actually become an expert at all its methods?
He got scared in less than a week I guess.
wpf otherwise known as vaporware
>Visual Studio itself created with it
>Vapourware
lewd kid
Pajeet how much are u getting paid to pre-shill WPF ? Seriously for past 2 weeks I've seen at least 50 WPF posts, everyone with at least 100 IQ can predict that M$ will release WPF for crossplatform with .NET 5.0 now stop shilling
Kill yourself, shill
VS is the only big software project I know that uses XAML. Are there any other? Also VS a crap...
I agree that XAML is nice (and it's a way better HTML than HTML is) but where are you going to use it?
- WPF is dead.
- WinRT is dead.
- UWP is already at its second iteration.
And it just keep on going, every year they announce the "new framework to end all frameworks" and kill it the next.
And of course code and libraries are incompatible across WPF, WinRT and both UWP iterations.
> I can't accept my incompetence
> Let's blame other races
lewd Sup Forumsster kid
It's the only framework that is actually modern for the Windows Desktop. Approximately 100% of what Microsoft makes now is on a XAML based framework. The only alternative Microsoft thing is more than ancient technology technology with Forms but nobody uses that in house.
> that meme again
do you even understand what XAML is?
Everything is wrapped around the WPF so if XAML exists then WPF exists, which is the only framework that Microsoft considers modern for the Windows Desktop. Everything they make is made on WPF and C# for the pure desktop.
When they do not use pure desktop, like for their new shitty up, they still use XAML on a subset for mobile, e.g.:
WinRT: Windows 8-only
UWP: Windows 10-only
Bullshit-newname: Windows -only
I know it's Microsoft's fault it's so confusing, but now you have no excuse. XAML and C# is the BASIS so nothing that works on an OS that uses them can die if those live.
Think of it this way, XAML has a full feature set, that is always updated and current on the full WPF for the current desktop *(e.g. it was just updated to 4.6.2 with new features).
Now, they may try to shill their way with a subset of it for their new latest OS (UWP for 10, WinRT for 8, but that doesn't kill or revive anything, it just rebrands).
The only thing would claim with the straight is face is that people IN WHOLE don't want to make Windows applications, which might have some truth but it's obvious the sperglords of Sup Forums /pol exaggerate since Linux is still minuscule on the desktop and the tools are shit.
There is nothing you could become an "expert" at.
It's one of many shitty ways to create a declarative described GUI and some of the shitty ideas, like overembracing Model-View binding fluctuated into another shitty area, web dev.
Let's not be that confusing, it's simple. XAML is the actual tool, WPF is just the general original name that wraps it all together so if for instance you are using the full feature set of XAML with C# on the Desktop then obviously WPF isn't dead and Microsoft constantly upgrades each .NET version. Now, what does make it fucking confusing is that to revive interest they keep rebranding the exact same thing on a subset for their general mobile/universal platform, e.g. WinRT for the Windows 8 or later, UWP for the Windows 10 or later etc.
In the end, it matters little what acronym you use, as long as it's fucking XAML. If it's Desktop and it's XAML it's the latest thing they have out still and it's not going to be replaced any time soon.
It is a fucking learning curve will fuck with your brain but that can be a good thing. Most good languages fuck with your brain at first, C especially because of pointers, Assembler, etc. Maybe something being simple means it doesn't offer something too unique.
>XML based declaration and basic metaprogramming is a fucking learning curve will fuck with your brain
>C especially because of pointers, Assembler, etc.
ok
Nothing could be further from the truth in this particular case. For example you may know what a Listing of an Array looks like Visually on XAML but you may most probably have no fucking idea that you can manipulate those in such an amazing but complex way that you will learn about it only at the very last chapters of a good WPF/UWP/Other XAML based book. XAML is a fucking beast.
The main problem most people have is that their automatically goes to "it's just an HTML-like declaration of a Visual". That brainfuck makes then erroneously believe that C# is the main tool they have on the whole application. Nothing could be further from the truth since the real secret about it is that XAML is the main fucking tool here.
As said above, you expose your banal misconception about XAML with those thoughts, precisely because the entire point that makes most people fucking hate XAML's steep learning curse is that they erroneously believe they must do every single shit on code-behind when in reality what confuses them and made them hate the whole thing is that they never realized that XAML is a fucking beast that can do an enormous part of the job that C# would do otherwise at a fraction of cost in resources and programming, but, with the caveat you have to know what the fuck you are doing and about 90% of those that ever touched XAML never really understood, hated that code-behind wasn't enough and left because they never really got what the basis of the whole thing is.
It's not a coincidence that users of Expression Blend routinely call everyone a fucking idiot that they never open it up when they work with XAML, not because it's so important in itself but because if you never use Blend, it probably mean you have no fucking idea what the entire point of XAML to begin with.
>manipulate those in such an amazing but complex way that you will learn about it only at the very last chapters of a good WPF/UWP/Other XAML based book
Nice try, XAML book shiller. Reality though is, that those (and a lot of other runtime metaprogramming based) automations may be nice at a first glance, but slow and shitty to maintain. Literally every of the many non-trivial WPF/UWP I came across is slow and a mess. About half of them the team gave up and put some Telerik shit in there.
Let's not forget that writing XML is barely acceptable, even in the dedicated XAML editor.
You aren't a Telerik shill, are you?
I don't even fucking know who that company is so don't try to sperg your way out of it with Sup Forumsster paranoia. What I'm telling you is that your view that is just a declaration of a UI is at the core of what makes you think is shit. Of course it's shit if it's just a declaration of a UI!
What 90%+ of those that ever try it and then shortly hate it don't get is that their brain is so hardcoded from monkey-ing around for years on regular procedural coding and good ol' HTML that they can't possibly understand that XAML is not fucking HTML.
The very fact you say it's slower it proves that you don't get what the whole point is. It's extremely faster to code, maintain and run but 90% of those that ever touched have no fucking idea how to do it and they almost always abandon it for a simplistic API.
>What I'm telling you is that your view that is just a declaration of a UI
I didn't say that, you retard.
It doesn't matter, kinds of data bindings like that have been tried before in the Java world and before that in other systems and they all have failed.
It's not even like it's actually faster to code, beginners like you just perceive it as faster because they think they can get rid of state handling.
The big picture you have is completely out of touch. About 90% of opinions on XAML is that it has an extremely steep learning curve hence they hate it, hence they crawl back into their little HTML or Python world or even back into their ancient monolithik GTK-esque UI. There is nearly 0 complaining about speed from the overwhelming majority that could ever be its audience.
Hasn't Trump deported you yet?
Are you working from your home country?
>The big picture you have is completely out of touch.
Probably, but then again I'm not some Web/Python/GTK weeny but someone who recognises a bad idea like automated data bindings, in particular if it's a repetition of another bad idea from the past.
>There is nearly 0 complaining about speed from the overwhelming majority that could ever be its audience.
That is because the overwhelming majority is office drones that have no say when it comes to workspace ergonomics and are happy to get rid of their IE based shit and gaymurs that tweak their drivers.
I've used WPF for a few months
It's garbage
Very poor performance and very cumbersome to use
I ended up going back to Forms and building my own UI rendering framework on top of it (which is software but significantly faster than the "hardware" WPF rendering)
here, it may even be a counter WPF operation to ban WPF/MS from this boards, like someone managed with some generals some years ago.
Jew, you won't deflect the blame to the Pajeets.
>I can't answer
>let's ban them
full sperglord freeturd mode
>I can't even into interpreting posts correctly.
>cumbersome to use
I believe that's a delusion though. It's mainly a psychological thing, and it could be Microsoft's fault in not explaining it well. See, we enter the XAML world with a frameset of "oh it's just fucking HTML and I'm gonna do most of the shit in C# aren't I?" while that's precisely why most people fail to even learn the basics.
That's another delusion actually. The "basics" of XAML are not learned only until the very last chapters of the best books about it. For instance the entire Stack Exchange is full people trying to re-invent the wheel of methods that are already in it.
And I'm not even talking about bad answers. People that are excellent procedural programming keep reinventing the wheel at a daily basis with 80% of the answers being or largely including C# for almost everything that doesn't need it.
>See, we enter the XAML world with a frameset of "oh it's just fucking HTML and I'm gonna do most of the shit in C# aren't I?"
No, actually not, and that is exactly the problem.
>C pointers, Assembler code
>burn your brain
You should get that brain of yours checked.
But it doesn't work that simply. We have the motto that we'll get it easily, that "we'll do everything on XAML", *THEN* we get the delusion that it's gonna be extremely easy to learn, THEN we have the delusion that we learned everything there is, and then we hit walls, but in reality most people have not spent more than 10 minutes reading about it before delving fully in.
It's a fucking beast.
You need to RTFM.
You are both taking turns gagging on each others penis. Please refrain from demonstrating tour homosexuality towards each other on this image board. This is a work safe environment.
XAML is shit. No generics (you can hack them in somewhat, or extend from Object, but neither is a good 'solution'), confusing/ridiculous behaviour for binding functionality from parent context/parameters (this stuff clashed with mouse focus iirc, might be just WPF, though.), DI with DependencyProperties has a lot of needless boilerplate, etc.
You need those features if you want to reduce code duplication and have a decent abstraction/uniformity on your GUI design, which is the reason you're not using something like html in the first place.
All in all, after learning this stuff in about 2 weeks with my collegue, the main conclusion was that we could have already have built the entire app in that time and that using winforms will probably be faster still.
Xaml is a monstrosity that has been spawned from the idea that the templating language should be output from some WYSIWYG "designer" tool (which is a result of the retarded philosophy that programmers and 'designers' should not only be separate groups, but should barely interact at all.). Then, they realised programmers will hate this due to the duplication and shit cide this gives, so they tried to patch it up. Obviously, they failed and now we have Xaml, retarded by design.
This. I've seen a lot WPF accepted and upvoted answers on SO that are just stupid workarounds to provide standard WPF functionality. The only way to learn WPF is to buy a book or find a really good tutorial (1 or 2 exist, the length of them is a good indication of how needlessly complex the entire thing is). Even if you read those sources, there still are cases where you have to figure it out on your own. (the fact that people accept this as normal is shown by the SO answers) Now, all of this might be worth it if the result would be so much better than winforms, but it isn't. Really, WPF was a mistake. I can see why M$ wants to rebrand it and try again.
Microsoft are morons at the Marketing Department. They failed to "Keep it Simple stupid". XAML for all its steep curve of learning, isn't helped by a constant spamming of new Acronyms that do absolutely nothing other than to rebrand XAML and C# with minuscule differences.
As a result we have sperglords in here and everywhere that think UWP is completely different to WinRT or WPF is superseded. Nothing is fucking superseded. Those are all lingo to build around XAML and if its pure desktop and full set it's still WPF.
Definitely agree on the SO stuff.
>tutorial (1 or 2 exist, the length of them is a good indication of how needlessly complex the entire thing is)
The language/framework triggers the autism of so many people being used to procedural programming that treats UI creation as something simplistic and stupid that does not deserve any work other than "drag and drop a button here and move a bar" that even the best authors on the framework fail to be very succinct.
I believe the worst thing one can do to the language is to write a tutorial that has also "and here is how to do it in C#". The worst ones do it only in C#.
>confusing
>code repetition
>I wasted time
That's what you get when you spend only 2 weeks of half-arsed morning hours learning on that thing. XAML is not just a markup language you learn in two weeks.
I know it gives the delusion that it is easier than you think to learn everything. It's the trap most people that ever tried it fall into. In reality they learned little.
It really is amazing.
Really shows just how unsuited HTML (or rather the web in general) is for building applications.
What a shame that native applications are going away in favor of webshit, though...
Of course I haven't mastered the language. But I meant what I said: we spent 4 FTE weeks trying to learn the basics of the language, after which we decided putting in more time wasn't worth it, mostly due to the awful stuff we encountered. We made the app in WPF anyway, the team lead liked it for some reason.
And of course, UI design isn't as trivial as some tutorials may let you believe, but this doesn't mean WPF hasn't needlessly overcomplicated it. Why should the UI definition be in a completely different language anyway? All in all, WPF smells of design by the marketing department, with the details filled in by the actual programmers, instead of a design made with the developers in mind, and it reeks.
>Why should the UI definition be in a completely different language anyway?
You can write UI in C# and that's pretty much how you would do it when you need to generate elements on the fly.
What's the modern not meme way of creating GUI applications for
just Windows and
Windows, GNU + Linux, MacOS?
Windows API.
For .NET the only cross-platform UI is WinForms
For C++ there also is QT
Both are kinda shit. Actually both are almost identical it being practically deprecated models (non-dynamic, severely depended on code-behind code).
Qt does try to copy-cat XAML with QML so that's kinda modern and right, but, in practice like having 10 neckbeards trying to compete with a Corporations.
It was announced 1-2 years after XAML and it's still at a state like pre-alpha.
The Qt Creator a lone is a simplistic and buggy piece of shit.
I think it's mainly a victim of its ambition. When you try to develop for ALL platforms, well, ALL platforms will get half the goods.
I think a good cross-platform UI can be made
It just has to be for either desktop or mobile and not for both because they are too different
There is only one way. An Open Standard that everyone will agree to follow. But I get the impression coders are too lazy nowadays and they are scared to move away from their easy as shit code-behind and learn something new.
>Developed by
>Microsoft
NOPE.
>t.posted from a microsoft OS