|
I've been working seriously on HTML5/CSS stuffs since some months only, but I have a 8-10 years experience with XAML (WPF desktop apps).
What I'm realizing is that the layout model of the modern browsers seems much more "primitive" yet cumbersome than the XAML specifications. In other words: why don't see how "others" (i.e. XAML and related) have solved the layout modelization, and pick the best from all the available in the world?
However, I wouldn't say too much: just curious about other developers opinion.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
My very quick and non-expert opinion on this is that XAML for WPF has guidelines that are written for the .Net framework.
This means that you know what the output is going to look like - I really like the hand-coding aspect of WPF. Basically it works as it is designed to work.
Whilst with HTML you have a whole number of browsers that you are designing for, so sometimes you have no idea of how the browser, a particular user will use, implements the rendering of HTML - hence HTML being a PITA.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I dislike everything connected to browsers, HTML and scripting. It's the incompatibilities, the less than optimal look and response and of course the arcane layout rules of HTML that never really convinced me. Primitive yet cumbersome is a very good way to describe it.
XAML is far more flexible. I did not only use it for my own UI and the layout of the views, the UI styles, but also to load scenes and animations into the graphics engine in the background. XAML is all about creating instances of serialized classes and does not care what the classes actually are for.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mario Vernari wrote: Alternatives?
There really isn't much. On the web site, jQuery and some decent client-side tools for managing models, updating the UI, and a good UI suite (I'm currently enamored with jqWidgets) helps a lot.
WPF, well, it's cool when it works, but even doing something like replacing the scrollbar on a datagrid is an arduous task.
So, sadly, there really is no good alternative, which is why I still like WinForm development the most.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering how you like Winforms and write about functional programming!...don't you hate them?
jQuery offers a very limited help on layout: what I mean is how to structure (in a declarative way) the layout, then load whatever I need keeping the maximum abstraction. Still no better solution than WPF.
Replacing a scroll bar (or so) isn't a difficult task. I believe the people find difficult the approach because it relies on decoupled layers of logic, and you should keep behavior and styling as two distinct citizens speaking the same language.
That's really hard to achieve with other frameworks, and practically impossible with Winforms.
By the way, I keep your viewpoint as valuable!
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Mario Vernari wrote: Just wondering how you like Winforms and write about functional programming!
That's a really good question, in fact, writing UI in an FP language is where the tension between stateful and stateless programming styles really collides. I've puzzled over this for a long time and still don't have a good (or any) answer to that problem.
Mario Vernari wrote: jQuery offers a very limited help on layout:
True, I meant more because it makes doing things like Ajax really easy, and working with the DOM.
Mario Vernari wrote: what I mean is how to structure (in a declarative way) the layout, then load whatever I need keeping the maximum abstraction. Still no better solution than WPF.
Actually, for WinForms, yes there is. I use my MycroXaml[^] engine extensively for WinForm development. It's not XAML, actually, but because the .NET UI components were written well, they are highly suited (with a few annoying exceptions that require helpers) for declarative instantiation. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting your project. For sure it was at the time of the publication, but looks nice as for who needs to think "differently"!
I also tried to mimic the WPF layout for the .Net Micro Framework, but I stopped due the limited usefulness of the project. I had some great time writing it!
https://cetmicrowpf.codeplex.com/[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Mario Vernari wrote: I also tried to mimic the WPF layout for the .Net Micro Framework,
I poked around a bit in cetmicrowpf, it looks really neat! I've been doing some BeagleBone stuff and would definitely find what you did quite useful.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks!
The MicroWPF started as an experiment, and -upon a success- would have turned to something concrete. Unfortunately, the Micro Framework seemed stuck at that time, and the project is stalled. Honestly, I don't know if there'll be any application other than experimentation.
I own a BeagleBone Black, but it's still on my desk, almost unused due the lack of spare time.
Contact me then we may share something interesting: I'd love hacking!
Mail: vernarim (at) outlook (dot) com
Skype: mario.vernari
|
|
|
|
|
These days I use a grid like neat with bourbon.io for most of my layout work. Regardless of how you do the layout, I can't go back to straight CSS. Using LESS or SASS for variables and nesting is the bare minimum. Also, you need a good "reset" stylesheet to start from, and setting the box model to border box will save a lot of headache.
|
|
|
|
|
A straight-forward one for Monday:
Serve food having no way out on the diagonal side (5-8)
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Straight forward is more tough than twisted one.
Does the answer include the word "opposite"
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
super wrote: Does the answer include the word "opposite"
Not as it is. 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure this is correct. Never thought of Cornered...
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
That's correct. 
You are up for tomorrow.
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never heard that phrase before - no wonder I didn't get the answer!
I am now determined to use it in conversation today!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Maxxx wrote: I am now determined to use it in conversation today!
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Movie Quote Of The Day
If you could reenact that look of absolute befuddlement, it would be perfect for the cover of my DVD.
Which movie?
|
|
|
|
|
iC# 
That's one of the pathetic movies I have ever seen. 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
You won on Friday, remember! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I was going to post it as per the rules*: at 0900 GMT. 
* As I know them. 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
