Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Dec 2010 22:14 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Thread beginning with comment 452170
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
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'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.




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.
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.