Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Dec 2010 22:14 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
.NET (dotGNU too) "In a keynote presentation at the Silverlight Firestarter event this morning, Corporate Vice President in Microsoft's developer division, Scott Guthrie officially announced Silverlight 5, and outlined its new features and 1H 2011 beta availability. Silverlight 5 adds more than 40 new features to the Web application framework that focus on improving its streaming media functionality for users and on improving application development for engineers. Some of the new streaming additions include: GPU-accelerated video decoding, variable speed playback which allows for user-defined, pitch-corrected slow motion, improved power saver awareness to prevent screensavers from turning on during playback, and native remote control support."
Thread beginning with comment 452170
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: More Info
by n4cer on Sat 4th Dec 2010 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: More Info"
n4cer
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd argue that is incorrect - if Microsoft did all their user interface in Windows in WPF then you would have a single consistent user interface experience across the board rather than the mishmash of different UI paradigms based on the particular generation of toolkit that the application is written in. Take a look at Control Panel at the number of components designed in the 9x and pre-Aero paradigm for example. Yes these are very small things but it is about showing attention to detail - that Microsoft not only cares about the big things but also the small things as well.


I agree with this.
I've long thought MS should standardize on WPF for Windows' UI. They could expose XAML styles/control templates, enabling super easy customization of the OS' look and feel (and also a one-click way to revert changes) -- even obviating shell replacements. Want your taskbar to be a floating launch panel? Just edit some XAML.


IIRC Peter's background is in Mac OS X although he talks about developing for Windows my hunch is that his understanding of Windows is pretty limited at best. A developer isn't necessarily a person who has to be versed in understanding the underlying technology of the operating system - I've actually talked to developers who develop for Windows whose understanding of the platform is very superficial at best.


He's been critical of .NET's API design in the past. I think he prefers the unmanaged APIs (or did a few years go). Overall, I think he has high expectations of consistency that's an ideal for APIs and too constraining for desktop applications. Despite this (and his licking a MacBook ;-) ), I like reading his articles and comments, and think he's one of the better Ars contributors.

There is some merit in that MS could use someone who can look across divisions and try to unify similar efforts more often, and work to adopt new technologies more rapidly. MS product teams are treated as seperate companies who are largely autonomous in their decision to partner with and adopt technologies from other teams. While this is nice as the teams should know what's the best direction for their product given requirements and feedback, it can waste time in duplicating effort or adversely affect the platform as a whole by slowing down standardization around new technologies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: More Info
by nt_jerkface on Sat 4th Dec 2010 18:23 in reply to "RE[6]: More Info"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

He's been critical of .NET's API design in the past. I think he prefers the unmanaged APIs (or did a few years go). Overall, I think he has high expectations of consistency that's an ideal for APIs and too constraining for desktop applications. Despite this (and his licking a MacBook ;-) ), I like reading his articles and comments, and think he's one of the better Ars contributors.


He writes articles that take pot shots at MS and makes it absolutely clear to us Windows developers that his understanding of these technologies is at a freshmen level. Of course if you don't work with these technologies on a deeper level then his articles might seem insightful. Lucky for him the vast majority of Ars visitors are not .NET developers and thus assume he is credible.

Just look at this excerpt:
There's "traditional" native Win32 development, .NET development using WPF and the full .NET Framework, and Silverlight development.


There is a massive "I'm an amateur" red flag in that sentence that an experienced .NET dev will see.

He didn't mention Winforms which is still used more than WPF. WPF is slowly gaining adoption but there is intertia behind Winforms much like XP. When it comes to competing methods of development he missed the stinking dead rhino in the room.

I'm sure he'll read this comment and get it right in the next article.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: More Info
by kaiwai on Sun 5th Dec 2010 04:26 in reply to "RE[6]: More Info"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with this.
I've long thought MS should standardize on WPF for Windows' UI. They could expose XAML styles/control templates, enabling super easy customization of the OS' look and feel (and also a one-click way to revert changes) -- even obviating shell replacements. Want your taskbar to be a floating launch panel? Just edit some XAML.


I remember seeing XAML being demonstrated for the first time in terms of UI customisation - all I could say was "that is fucking awesome!"

There is also the possibility of having a collection of technologies and XAML glue their together in a particular way for a particular task - where you can have a foundation of frameworks and have the presentation layer sitting on top where you can move from DTP work to Vector graphics then to Photo editing all using the same frameworks underneath with the only thing changing is the presentation layer sitting on top.

He's been critical of .NET's API design in the past. I think he prefers the unmanaged APIs (or did a few years go). Overall, I think he has high expectations of consistency that's an ideal for APIs and too constraining for desktop applications. Despite this (and his licking a MacBook ;-) ), I like reading his articles and comments, and think he's one of the better Ars contributors.


Which is interesting given he likes Objective-C 2.0 which provides garbage collection - so I wonder whether his complaints isn't necessarily managed versus unmanaged but the degree in which something is managed and whether there is the ability to 'opt out' when one doesn't want it.

There is some merit in that MS could use someone who can look across divisions and try to unify similar efforts more often, and work to adopt new technologies more rapidly. MS product teams are treated as seperate companies who are largely autonomous in their decision to partner with and adopt technologies from other teams. While this is nice as the teams should know what's the best direction for their product given requirements and feedback, it can waste time in duplicating effort or adversely affect the platform as a whole by slowing down standardization around new technologies.


True, that has always been my complaint - they have great technology but no coherent top down vision which brings all these 'things' together into a unified strategy. I look at their phone strategy and ask "how does this fit into their desktop and server strategy'? I look at the mass of API's they've developed over the last 10 years and I ask myself why these aren't being utilised from top to bottom rather than being an appendix. Then there is the issue of HIG where ever division seems to go off and do their own thing rather than having a singular vision that all divisions are lock-step with it.

Reply Parent Score: 2