And the rumors/conjecture begin again...

[Bill Kempf]

http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/537381-wpfdoes-it-just-fade-way/

This is seriously a PR problem for Microsoft, IMHO.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
- Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Bugs are features.

[Philipp Sumi]

Just FUD IMO - after all, WPF is the platform to write desktop applications, and it's still Windows that generates money for MSFT, after all. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a merge of the technologies into different Silverlight flavors (e.g. SL.Web, SL.Desktop, SL.Mobile) with "SL.Desktop" being what we'd call WPF today, with an even stronger emphasis on code reuse. This would also make the PR issue go away. I could imagine that we'll get there in a not too distant future.

[Peter O'Hanlon]

I've added my tuppence to the thread, but in a nutshell it's

 

"How could you justify having WinForms and ASP.NET? Silverlight and WPF tackle two very different problem domains, and their internals reflect this. You can't have a framework as large as WPF downloaded as part of the SL runtime, so SL cherry picked its behaviour from WPF. You wouldn't want to write a full-trust desktop application in Silverlight, and you wouldn't want to write a browser based application in WPF.

Part of the problem stems from peoples insistence on using browser based applications for systems that they clearly aren't suited to. These applications tend to be characterised by the developers having to jump through hoops to cope with issues and workround limitations of browser applications."

--
Peter O'Hanlon

[Evan Lang]

“Part of the problem stems from peoples insistence on using browser based applications for systems that they clearly aren't suited to.”

 

 

A-MEN

[Sacha Barber]

Totally agree with that too

--
Sacha Barber
sacha....@gmail.com

[Daniel Vaughan]

Indeed. I've experienced this, and the attitude has generally come
from a standpoint of risk mitigation, and a notion, which is not
completely unfounded, that by using a thin client, security can be
better enforced. Although, it's surprising how much money some
organizations are willing to throw away on replicating complex desktop
functionality with JavaScript, rather than embracing better
practices.

On Mar 16, 5:26 pm, Evan Lang <evan.l...@identitymine.com> wrote:
> "Part of the problem stems from peoples insistence on using browser based applications for systems that they clearly aren't suited to."
>
> A-MEN
>
> From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter O'Hanlon
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:32 AM
> To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WPF Disciples] And the rumors/conjecture begin again...
>
> I've added my tuppence to the thread, but in a nutshell it's
>

> "How could you justify having WinForms and ASP.NET<http://ASP.NET>? Silverlight and WPF tackle two very different problem domains, and their internals reflect this. You can't have a framework as large as WPF downloaded as part of the SL runtime, so SL cherry picked its behaviour from WPF. You wouldn't want to write a full-trust desktop application in Silverlight, and you wouldn't want to write a browser based application in WPF.
>
> Part of the problem stems from peoples insistence on using browser based applications for systems that they clearly aren't suited to. These applications tend to be characterised by the developers having to jump through hoops to cope with issues and workround limitations of browser applications."On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bill Kempf <weke...@gmail.com<mailto:weke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/537381-wpfdoes-it-just-fa...