Comments on: WinFx is Dead Part 2 http://rwandering.net/2006/10/15/winfx-is-dead-part-2/ The blogged wandering of Robert W. Anderson Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:33:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Expert Texture » Blog Archive » More on the death of WinFx (Part 3) http://rwandering.net/2006/10/15/winfx-is-dead-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-80744 Expert Texture » Blog Archive » More on the death of WinFx (Part 3) Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:37:59 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/10/15/winfx-is-dead-part-2/#comment-80744 [...] Andrew Hilton recently commented on WinFx is Dead Part 2.  I am promoting it to a post so I can better comment on the comments. [...] [...] Andrew Hilton recently commented on WinFx is Dead Part 2.  I am promoting it to a post so I can better comment on the comments. [...]

]]> By: Andrew Hilton http://rwandering.net/2006/10/15/winfx-is-dead-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-80001 Andrew Hilton Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:59:13 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/10/15/winfx-is-dead-part-2/#comment-80001 Robert, I'm of the opinion that it is not yet the official windows API because it simply wasn't ready, and using .NET 2 with WinForms would have been too restrictive and no doubt would not have integrated with the subsystems of Vista (such as graphics). The .NET framework 3.0 was not released until almost the final release of Vista. The risk of developing the windows front end under the managed API and still ship on time would have been too great. From what I've heard early versions of Vista and Office 2007 did use the managed API (or at least an early version of WPF). My feeling is that the dev teams simply couldn't cope with a large framework like that shifting beneath their feet causing all manner of chaos. Hence the move by both Vista and Office 2007 back to COM, which also gave leeway to the WinFX teams to change stuff radically if they needed to. My assumption is that given the large technical leap of WPF, WCF etc there would have been many back steps as they were trying to go forward. I'll be very suprised if the consumer version of Vista does not include some managed code WPF apps. All the indications are that WPF will do very well (for example see the recent video of the WPF version of Yahoo messenger), so I assume the next version of windows will see the introduction of WPF apps at a deeper level (explorer for example), when all the issues and unknowns have been ironed out. Andrew Robert,

I’m of the opinion that it is not yet the official windows API because it simply wasn’t ready, and using .NET 2 with WinForms would have been too restrictive and no doubt would not have integrated with the subsystems of Vista (such as graphics). The .NET framework 3.0 was not released until almost the final release of Vista. The risk of developing the windows front end under the managed API and still ship on time would have been too great.

From what I’ve heard early versions of Vista and Office 2007 did use the managed API (or at least an early version of WPF). My feeling is that the dev teams simply couldn’t cope with a large framework like that shifting beneath their feet causing all manner of chaos. Hence the move by both Vista and Office 2007 back to COM, which also gave leeway to the WinFX teams to change stuff radically if they needed to. My assumption is that given the large technical leap of WPF, WCF etc there would have been many back steps as they were trying to go forward.

I’ll be very suprised if the consumer version of Vista does not include some managed code WPF apps. All the indications are that WPF will do very well (for example see the recent video of the WPF version of Yahoo messenger), so I assume the next version of windows will see the introduction of WPF apps at a deeper level (explorer for example), when all the issues and unknowns have been ironed out.

Andrew

]]>