Is this repo dead?

[GeraudFabien]

All in the title. Since May 2017 no real news. .... What MS thinks about it? What the community thinks? What "other implementation guys" like Avalon thinks?

[insinfo]

It looks like Microsoft has abandoned or forgotten the developers

[AuroraDysis]

ping @harinikmsft

[magol]

I have the same question.

[GeraudFabien]

Sometime this repo lookslike this one : https://github.com/benaadams/System.Ben/issues

It feels sad to me to say that because i place so much hope on it at the start.

[tpetrina]

The problem with xaml-standard is that it is quite confusing topic. First of all, what exactly needs to be standardised? Most common "issue" on this project is suggesting a control that should come with base XAML. Or converters. Or XAML featurs like x:Bind and Triggers.

However, XAML is not a set of controls, XAML is a dialect. And it consists of things like controls, properties, nested controls, nested properties, attached properties, behaviours, converters, markup extensions and such.

Instead of focusing on controls, focus on the XAML as a platform. One thing XAML clearly lacks is proper lifecycle. Another is extensibility. If you look at HTML/CSS/JS combo, that world has a lot of original technologies that are built on powerful underlying platform. Things like SASS/LESS/SPAs are invented there, not here.

Where is our incremental DOM? Or shadow DOM? Virtual one? What about HAML? Pug? Another syntax for writing terser UIs instead of writing "{Binding Property.Value, Converter={StaticResource BooleanToVisiblityConverter}, ConverterParameter={StaticResource InvertBool}}?

After all, every XAML file begins with two xmlns namespaces instead of top level <!DOCTYPE Xamarin.Forms>. Instead of inventing on top of XAML, we keep "loosing features". WPF was powerful, but Silverlight shed most of advanced features.

My love for XAML fades as I turned to React which is a superior implementation of what XAML was supposed to be: declarative markup.

Consider the following: IsVisible={ViewModel.ShowProgress} or IsVisible={Items.Count > 0}, why can't we have that? Why do we have three files: view model, view.xaml and view.xaml.cs? Why can't we inherit CustomPage<T> in XAML? I mean, there are x:TypeArguments but really? How easy it is to reference custom local control in XAML? How easy it is to refactor controls and move them to another folder? Is this really something we want to write: <OnPlatform x:TypeArguments="x:String">?

XAML feels heavy and binding, once super cool, feels cryptic compared to React's elegance. IMHO React is XAML/MVVM done right. Let's focus on inventing on top of a powerful and stable platform instead of talking about TreeView control here.

[shaggygi]

At the end of the DotNetRocks #1527 episode, @coolcsh mentioned more info will come at Build 2018. Cross fingers!

[chuck-flowers]

At the end of the DotNetRocks #1527 episode, @coolcsh mentioned more info will come at Build 2018. Cross fingers!

I noticed that part of the episode too. The optimist in me is running wild with possibilities. Mainly because he didn't just come out and say "the standard is still being developed". If it's worth an announcement at build there must be more to it than just an iteration on the standard. Maybe they've created a Microsoft supported front end with platform specific back ends like Avalonia and Eto.Forms.

But then the pessimist in me says that that it'll just be kind of a dud of an announcement.

Then the realist in me says that maybe they'll just announce v1.0 of the spec.

In a perfect world I just want something with the portability of Java Swing apps but all the great bonuses of WPF (hardware acceleration, great composability, XAML, etc.). Not sure how useful this would be for people in .NET production environments but for hobby projects I always liked being able to create a fast UI with Swing.

[MichaelPuckett2]

Still wanting to see this complete. Patiently waiting but anxious just as much. Any update on the progress?

[RyoukoKonpaku]

Probably won't hear any news till Build I guess? Still optimistic on this despite the silence 😃 Hopes for the best.

[Mike-E-angelo]

😉

[Mike-E-angelo]

Why look, a Xaml Standard sighting... for all the wrong reasons: https://mspoweruser.com/17-year-microsoft-veteran-thinks-re-org-means-end-of-windows-as-a-core-business-for-microsoft/

And XAML Standard, touted in the keynotes of last year’s Build as the strategy through which Microsoft would unify various incompatible dialects and UI technologies such as Xamarin, WPF and UWP, has clearly fallen victim to politics, with the repo seeming to be dead and its goals having been drastically watered down.

[amartens181]

😶

[TonyHenrique]

With this @Microsoft reorganization, with @Azure Cloud First, AI first and Quantum, I think that they will allow XAML to go where previous politics did not alow, ie. the Web. and cross-platform. Silverlight 6, with Universal XAML C# F# support.

I fear we dump XAML and go a javascript, html and react like way, or some json way, or even a ELM F# way. This will a big retrocess, in my opinion. The engineers should go and fix all these issues in upcoming Universal XAML. and also adopt reactiveness and immutability on it.

I think that the problem is that Microsoft hold XAML too much on the desktop for many years. But I think they will change this soon. XAML is very important. It is a clean way to instantiate objects. XAML is a solution, not a problem. XAML to the Azure Cloud!

[MichaelPuckett2]

Amen to everything he said above!!

[Mike-E-angelo]

They literally have cross platform code for displaying XAML. Right now. Sitting somewhere. Gathering dust.

Indeed, @jackbond sitting right below the vote that you mentioned earlier:

perhaps Microsoft is strapped for cash.

This suspicion is 100% aligned the output/quality/talent out of the UWP group for the past few years, and has also been my determination based on conversations/phone calls that I have had with their (remaining) staff. These phone calls and discussions have led to nowhere, of course. The self-inflicted conundrum that they are battling is that they had a talent drain to Google and elsewhere, which only leads to less resources, which only leads to less production, which only leads to less value, which only leads to less resources...

The bigger question to me is what has happened due to the recent restructuring/reorganization. I haven't seen/read/heard anything in regards to this, but my expectations are not very high. The .NET/Core team continues to be where the talent (and passion) in MSFT is at these days.

[insinfo]

@jackbond WPF + .NET Core open source is the best of the worlds

[Mike-E-angelo]

@jackbond I have noticed that they do have trigger words there for posts. Did your page refresh/load without a message? I have had that happen a few times and it had to do with certain words I was using. I've had this happen on Visual Studio's blog but not .NET's. I saw that you had your post edited once by Immo on .NET's blog, but I do not think you've been banhammered.

FWIW you are not the only one that has experienced this lately. If you do a search in the Ubiquitous Vote about 6 comments down there's mention by Oliver that he had problems, too.

I am pretty sure it has to do with certain words and not you personally. If so, that should definitely get rectified. UWP is really the only group that I have seen censoring in the Windows ecosystem as they really don't know what they are doing there... as this repo and many many other examples clearly illustrate. 😉

[dotMorten]

@mike-eee @jackbond : Perhaps just not swear so damn much?

[Mike-E-angelo]

In my case there were no swear words, @dotMorten. But there were words that I saw that could be seen as spam.

[dotMorten]

But in case you're wondering, this is what one of the big stakeholders think of XAML in Xamarin: https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/972525236301238272

If he considers it "Anchoring" in that negative connotation, well it's going to be a tough sell getting the Xamarin team on board. And without Xamarin on board, yes this standard would be completely and utterly dead.

[Mike-E-angelo]

@dotMorten I thought Xamarin was a part of this whole initiative from the start? The XF team was brought in to lead this? Jason Smith was in charge of this repo at one point, for example. Sounds like there might indeed be an announcement at //build. XAML STANDARD 2.0: THIS TIME WE MEAN IT.

[dotMorten]

@Mike-EEE I'm sure Jason will have a hard time pushing this, if his boss says no :-)

[Mike-E-angelo]

Heh... granted @dotMorten buuuuuut there's this whole huge announcement thing at last year's //build. A huge deal was made of it! We went through all the hassle of creating issues! And now it seems like that huge deal and effort was ... a mistake? An oversight? Trust is a bit of an issue here. Why should we trust any additional information and announcements out of //build now? The whole Silverlight thing doesn't help, either. Very big problem.

[dotMorten]

LOL. If only I had a penny each time someone announced plans that never materialized... I actually had a good discussion with Miguel a couple months ago about a change that wouldn't be breaking and accomplish almost all of it and he did sound open to it - he did also have a beer in his hand so he might also just have been drunk :-).

Put it another way: This repo isn't (officially at least) dead, and we're all still "fighting the good fight". It's just that I find the lack of progress and statements as what I linked to, very discouraging. The Xamarin team did a small effort to put something out there in November last year, and we all tore it apart as a horrible approach, and since then, we haven't seen any effort.

[Mike-E-angelo]

Fair enough... I guess my first question is why are these discussions happening over in Twitter and not here in the official repo? This is the first I have heard of this. Twitter is a terrible, inhumane place so I steer clear of it as much as I can. Besides, I have better things to do like troll developers on GitHub and in MSDN blog comments 😆

[dotMorten]

@jackbond Let's stop the discussion here and wait for build. It's not that far away, and then we'll know more. I'll be there and "hunt down" Harini, Miguel, Jason other engineers involved and try and get the scoop what is going on.

[Mike-E-angelo]

I've actually been hoping that this year's Build will a bit of a watershed moment.

Watch out @jackbond ... that's exactly how I felt for Mix '11. And pretty much every conference/announcement since then, for that matter. 😉

So now we have to see how they top making a supreme announcement to "fix" something, actually put forth the realized effort to create and establish the open source repository and subsequent community to "support" this effort, and then pull said support altogether about 6 months in after its inception.

[weitzhandler]

Thanks guys for your great discussion. I feel every word here. To sum it up, what I think MS needs to do:

• Implement a reliable UI framework in .NET Standard/Core, preferably XAML compliant
• Port .NET Core to WebAsm
• Boost up XAML Standard with all the power you got and have all major frameworks comply to it

[Mike-E-angelo]

I just had the funniest thought @weitzhandler that MSFT could very well indeed announce a move to WPF .NET Core for //build2018, hence all the hushhush on here all of the sudden. Wouldn't that be awesome. Although I would feel like the biggest chump in the world for hassling them on here for it, it would be worth it. 😆

[weitzhandler]

@Mike-EEE honestly, I doubt it. For the last several years MS has been announcing deadly boring stuff irrelevant to us LoB app developers in all its conferences. I think they're going to come out with a bunch of AI, robotics, cloud and other bad ass stuff, while nothing about a mere solid xplat UI framework. I'm preparing myself mentally for this, so I won't get disappointed again. Xamarin.Forms is HTMLish compared to WPF. It's really nothing even close. I think they would have done better publishing WPF as a .NET Core or preferably .NET Standard product, that renders equally everywhere allowing devs to make up different themes depending on platform for those who who want the native look and feel. I can't speak in name of everyone but we don't really give a rats @$$ £µ¢k about native look and feel, most import thing to us is development time and xplatness.

[Mike-E-angelo]

I think they're going to come out with a bunch of AI, robotics, cloud and other stuff, while nothing about a solid xplat UI framework

Don't forget those PWAs, @weitzhandler. The natives are already restless over it. 😉

My concern of course is that PWAs will be a primary focus without any thought towards .NET integration.

[insinfo]

it's very sad to see that those involved in the Xamarin project are thinking away from XAML, I believe that Xamarin's biggest revolution over other multi-platform development technologies is the Xamarin Forms embracing XAML. Microsoft has a terrible history of creating fantastic technologies and little after then abandoning, so it was with J #, Microsoft Portrait, TerraServer, Tablet PC, Timex DataLink smartwatch, MSN TV, Microsoft Courier, Microsoft Zune, Microsoft Mail, MSN Messenger, Hotmail , Windows Phone, Windows Forms, WPF and it seems that XAML and Xamarin also go to the same hole. This is a great differential of Google and Apple that also have abandoned some projects, most key projects are still strong and strong today, imagine if Google had abandoned Youtube, Gmail, Android, Android studio with Java, Translator, Driver, Play, Search, GCP and if Apple had abandoned the Imac, Ipad, Macbook, Iphone, Watch, TV, Safari, Xcode, IOS, MacOS, Itunes, Logic, Motion, Final Cut, iMovie, Keynote, GarageBand among others. In my vision if you want a product of permanent success in the market, this product has to constantly evolve, maintain its principles, maintain its brand and identity, persevere in times of crisis and especially not be abandoned, a good example of this is Coca Cola

[EisenbergEffect]

I was just researching and thought I'd check back in to see how this project was going from last year's announcement. I popped in and noticed that there hadn't been any updates for at least 6 months. So, I head over to the issues thinking I'll post a question on whether this project is still alive...and I find out that I'm not the only one questioning...

I'm more than a little disappointed with what's happened with this repo. I started working with .NET in 2003 and with WPF in the pre-beta timeline. I wrote one of the first books on WPF. I built one of the first MVVM frameworks for WPF (if not the first) and supported it for years. Then, Silverlight died and I pretty much left not only Xaml behind but .NET as well. I went to the web and built frameworks for app development there. To be frank, the web is messed up. However, I managed to build an application programming model over the web that has served me better than anything Microsoft has built. However, I've always longed for and wished that Microsoft would make things right.

I took a job with Microsoft in late 2016. It wasn't doing anything with cross-plat UI, because I knew of no such open position. However, while at Microsoft, I went around to different groups and sent internal emails to different people, trying to get buy-in for this idea. No dice. When Tim Sneath left Microsoft, I couldn't help but agree with him on pretty much everything he said. It really broke my heart to be working for a company that had so much potential to do something amazing in this space but couldn't get their act together and do it. They were following Google and Facebook instead of leading and they were too scared to even get involved. For years people were saying that Microsoft should hire me and others like me to help with their frontend story, but by the time I made my way there, the company wasn't interested anymore and was too afraid to do anything. Since then, I've left Microsoft.

Having said all that, I still hold out a little bit of hope that Microsoft will do something. I'm just not sure they have visionary leadership in this area. I would have been happy to provide that leadership, as would others, but it wasn't welcome. The really sad truth is that Microsoft could literally re-invent the modern browser. Combine .NET Core with cross-plat Xaml and a packaging and distribution system. Make it run on top off HTTPS with a capabilities-based security model and you've got something that can replace the browser entirely. If it's all open source, it has a real chance to do what other technologies can't. Microsoft has to think big and they have to take risks. So far, it looks like they've just packed their bags and gone home.

Let's hope they'll really surprise everyone at Build. These days I've left .NET and almost all Microsoft products behind and don't plan on coming back ever. However, if they make good on a plan like I've described above, I'd likely not only change my mind, but become a community champion again.

[EisenbergEffect]

Modern JS is quite a different language than the JS of old. It has classes, lambdas, generators (iterators), async/await, destructuring, proxies, etc. If you use TypeScript, the experience is very similar to C# but with an incredibly powerful structural type system (as apposed to nominal typing). It's probably one of the best type systems of any modern language. It's very impressive work.

The real issue with the web is HTML and CSS. They are hopelessly broken.

[LazyGepid]

Uhh... yeah, no. Typescript is just window dressing. You can still easily devolve into regular javascript and are still limited by it. I agree with jackbond. Further, it's clear javascript was never intended to be used the way it has been. Rational developers would have scrapped javascript a long time ago and come up with something else, but no one wants to do that and not get paid for it - well, unless you're an idiot and why would we want an idiot to come up with a new language for us all to use?

Anyhow, if browsers can be used to run cross-platform software, why can't someone just create a cross-platform library to run native apps? Why do we all insist on running things in browsers? I can't help but think of a line from Emmerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[EisenbergEffect]

@LazyGepid Please make sure to check your facts regarding the capabilities of the TypeScript compiler. Things may have changed since you last looked. When you configure the compiler with all the strict settings on, it's not possible to "devolve" into regular JavaScript. The compiler will not build your code if you don't type everything. It will also enforce strict non-nullable/nullable types and many other rules, some of which the C# compiler isn't even capable of enforcing yet. As an example, non-nullable types is a feature that is yet to come to C#. In fact, the proposed syntax for this in C# 8 is borrowed directly from TypeScript. Beyond that, a number of ideas that are coming to C# are being borrowed from TypeScript. Anders himself has said that he's hopeful that the C# team will be able to learn from what TypeScript has done with their type inference engine.

Regarding what JavaScript was originally intended for, that is not relevant. The language has evolved significantly. ES2015+ is so much different from ES5 that you can barely even call them the same language. It's no different from the history of C#. C# wasn't designed to be used in building microservices and function apps deployed to the cloud. Those technologies and architectures didn't even exist at the time and the C# of yesterday couldn't do it. The entire purpose of .NET Core was to evolve the language and platform so that .NET could compete in the microservices space, because .NET classic couldn't. All the new work that's going on with Span and low-level C# features...those are being added because, in order to compete with other platforms, they need to make C# do things it wasn't originally intended to do.

C# is a great language. I'm a fan. I also think TypeScript is great. Both C# and JavaScript/TypeScript are quite different today than when they began. Both have had to evolve to do things they weren't ever intended to do.

As I stated, the real problem is HTML and CSS. There's also a number of issues with what I call "browser cruft" that surrounds HTML. These are very difficult issues to address. Building a new cross-platform, high-perf, vector-based graphics engine and runtime is very expensive and very time-consuming. People have tried and people are continuing to try. The problem is that it will never succeed if it isn't free and open source. It just won't be able to gain enough traction. But, it would cost tens of millions of dollars to create and millions of dollars per year to sustain. So, how do you convince an executive that you want to spend $50MM over the next 5 years on a project that won't make any direct revenue? That's extremely difficult (a gross understatement). Believe me, I tried to convince people it was worth it via non-direct revenue, but no one at a high enough level wants to take a risk on that, because if it didn't go amazingly, their career would be over. Regarding Microsoft, as a business, they are moving to being a completely cloud-revenue-driven company. Even Windows has been demoted to a non-top-level product. It doesn't even have an EVP! Literally everything that Microsoft does now has to be justified by answering the question "How is this going to generate a billlion-dollar revenue stream for Azure?" Not millions. Not hundreds of millions. Billions.

Projects like Blazor are interesting, but they suffer from the above issue. How do you justify it from a business perspective? Blazor is a pure cost. It's different from .NET Core server tech, which translates to Azure consumption. Blazor doesn't translate that way because it runs in the browser and isn't tied to Azure specifically. If they did tie Blazor to Azure, then it wouldn't succeed in the marketplace. It wouldn't gain enough traction to compete with other frameworks which don't have that limitation. So, Blazor is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Even if it does get officially productized, it would be risky to adopt it because it's likely to go the same way as Silverlight. That's what happens to multi-million dollar projects that can't generate massive revenue after a few years. Microsoft is a business that wants to make billion-dollar revenue. They don't just make tech they think is nice or that they think you want. They make stuff that's going to get them to their quarterly, annual and multi-year revenue goals. People who help the company meet these goals get promoted and do more of the same. People who focus on really helping customers get what they need, but don't generate massive revenue are stuck in the same position with no promotion, year after year. It's a billion-dollar business with a lot of politics.

Again, having said all that, I still hold a little hope that some CVP or EVP will catch just a glimpse of the vision of what Microsoft could do and then make a gutsy move to do it.

[Mike-E-angelo]

Nodding to everything you're stating here @EisenbergEffect as far as MSFT/corporate underpinnings. However...

Even if it does get officially productized, it would be risky to adopt it because it's likely to go the same way as Silverlight

Not entirely true. That is, unless WebAssembly goes the way of Silverlight, which is unlikely as it has buy-in from AAPL, GOOG, and of course MSFT. Additionally, if it stops getting internal support/resources, it's an open source project so it CAN and SHOULD continue on in some fashion, rather than being thrown in the dungeon for eternity like Silverlight has. :) This is definitely one aspect that has changed since 2011.

[amartens181]

I think blazor will be more successful. A lot of people want easy c# in the browser. CSS is what enables much of the design. Great UIs are nearly impossible to do in native apps. CSS may be inefficient, but it's much better than having a 90s UI or a platform specific UI.

[EisenbergEffect]

I think it's too early to tell with Blazor. My concern isn't over the technology aspect of it. Web Assembly isn't going anywhere. That's not necessarily the risky part. I'm more concerned about the long-term business support. Without a business model for Blazor that generates revenue for Azure rather than spending millions, the business itself won't choose to keep the project alive long-term. The open source aspect of the project helps greatly. However, if a real C# => Web Assembly compiler isn't supported by Microsoft, then that's a challenge. There are very few people who have the skill and experience to maintain a compiler/runtime for a popular language like C#. Less people even that have the time and resources to do it with no funding.

Again, keep in mind that even the open source that Microsoft does is done for business reasons. People high up aren't passionate about open source. It's the low-level people who are. The high-level business decision makers only see open source as a way to gain mind-share with communities that value open source and who aren't traditional Microsoft customers. e.g. Linux. The open source work being done is directly connected to the desire to gain trust from Linux and similar communities so that they will choose to purchase Azure :) It's not necessarily about doing new things for existing Microsoft customers. Most of the people on this thread are Microsoft fans and will stay with Microsoft regardless of whether they make Blazor or not. You'll be dissappointed that they didn't do it, or that they cancelled it, but you probably won't abandon .NET and start doing Node.js. So, there's little benefit to Microsoft for doing this for you. Rather, Microsoft is trying to get new customers. To grow the business they need to get people who use JavaScript, Ruby, Python and other platforms to become Microsoft customers. Is creating Blazor going to do that? Will all these devs (and managers and CTOs) completely abandon their platforms and learn a new language just to use Blazor? Many are already happy with what they have. That's the challenge here. How to generate revenue and gain enough mindshare to sustain the project long-term? It's a tough battle. I'm glad a few people in .NET-land think it's worth a try and are taking the risk. It is a risk though.

Open source can be an expensive endeavor, so companies like Microsoft want to see revenue generated from it. Would Blazor succeed if it, compiler and all, were completely jettisoned from Microsoft and the external community asked to maintain, evolve and keep it compliant with the evolving C# spec...and compete with all the other front-end frameworks? I don't know.

Waiting to see what //build holds...

[EisenbergEffect]

@jackbond Following that reasoning, I could say that the existence of C# is proof that programming in IL is complete garbage and the existence of IL is proof that JITs and GC are complete garbage, which is proof that assembly is completely garbage, which is proof that the x86 instruction set is complete garbage. Hey, maybe it's all garbage. The point of compilers is to abstract away the nasty stuff underneath that you don't like or don't want to do and to make writing programs easier and safer. TypeScript to JavaScript is no different than C# to MSIL. Both convert your program into a representation that gets JIT'd and run on a VM. Both make writing code easier and safer.

[EisenbergEffect]

"Devolve" was your word, not mine.

Again, please check up on your latest information. Performance of C# vs. JavaScript is not so clear-cut. It depends on what you are doing. In some scenarios JS out-performs C#. In others, C# out-performs JS. Most developers aren't actually working on projects where the perf differences, in either case, are significant enough to be a deciding factor on the technology. Your average web site or web service, if it has perf issues, doesn't have them because of it being written in JS or C#. It has those issues typically because of architectural problems which are independent of the language or platform. I've seen ColdFusion with MySQL scale to millions of concurrent users while I've seen .NET with a document DB collapse under less than 10 users. If you have real perf issues because of the language, then you are probably better off going to something like Rust or another very low level language.

Broad generalizations about performance are almost never correct.

[EisenbergEffect]

@jackbond Oops. Pardon me for getting one troll confused with another troll.

I have no need to defend JavaScript. I love JavaScript/TypeScript and I love C# and .NET. I've been involved and a leader in both communities for a long time. I wrote several of the industry certifications exams for C# and I've participated with members of TC39 in designing upcoming features of the JavaScript language. I've also been a critic of .NET and a critic of browser technology, understanding that nothing is perfect. I'm happy to see C# and JavaScript/TypeScript both prosper, as each has a place and has helped countless businesses and individuals succeed. What I do feel a need to do is make sure no one else on this thread is confused by the misinformation being put out here by various people.

Regarding TypeScript ultimately targeting Web Assembly, I had lunch with Anders and the TypeScript team to discuss a variety of topics, including that, last year. Whenever someone mentions that, most of the TS team just chuckles because it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding about WebAssembly. The primary use case for WASM is to get C++ running in the browser. It's not primarily about performance of execution but more about performance of loading large codebases and enabling existing C++ code to run. WASM isn't a good target for TypeScript, nor is it for many languages today (WASM lacks critical features, particularly for GC). Even if it was, it likely wouldn't yield any benefits in performance. If it's performance that you are after, then you are better off leveraging SIMD.js, WebGL computation, web workers, typed arrays, and other techniques.

Let's all stop this worthless language debate now. This thread is about Xaml and the future of the Xaml standard and what Microsoft is going to do in this space, whether they are committed or not, etc. I look forward to hearing at //build about what Microsoft's next steps are for Xaml and for front-end in general.

[Mike-E-angelo]

Pardon me for getting one troll confused with another troll.

Call it troll or not, I for one appreciate hearing the different sides and viewpoints... even if they are a little abrasive. 🤓

I also think there's a place for JavaScript. It's just that I don't ever want to touch it. No one technology should ever have a monopoly on the market. Personally, I am relieved that C#/.NET is in the same discussion as JavaScript. That means it's somewhere near being ubiquitous -- in that it can run everywhere, not that it is used to develop everywhere (although that would be nice, too). There was a point in time that this did not look to be the case. IMO, this is where we bow down to Xamarin and give our dues. Otherwise, we all would be using JavaScript and .NET would be irrelevant as other platforms/devices continued to soak up MSFT's market share, leaving it with no value.

I mean, are there even any other stacks that are in the conversation? This could be bias on my part but it seems to me the system is boiling down to .NET and JavaScript, which is pretty awesome IMO.

In any case, it's a good thing we have two competing ubiquitous development ecosystems. Each have their own style and personality and each can learn from the other. Of course, I prefer one over the other, but that is me.

Also, it's nice to see that some value is being derived from this repo since MSFT has lit it aflame and convincingly abandoned it. I'll throw my log on the fire here. Seen recently: https://mspoweruser.com/developer-there-is-absolutely-no-adoption-for-the-windows-store/

Bring on //build. 😉

[Happypig375]

I mean, are there even any other stacks that are in the conversation? This could be bias on my part but it seems to me the system is boiling down to .NET and JavaScript, which is pretty awesome IMO.

I'll bring in Java. Not that it is a great language, but it is the market majority and its activeness is on par with JavaScript imo.

[Mike-E-angelo]

I guess that is true @Happypig375 when you consider that Java can leverage WebAssembly thereby making it ubiquitous, too. I was thinking more of being hosted in a traditional web page like you can with Ooui. But technically speaking you could do the same thing with Java. Good point. 👍

SEE? THIS REPO IS VALUABLE AFTER ALL. 😆 🎉

[Happypig375]

@Mike-EEE Now that I think about it, there are many other languages that can be compiled to WebAssembly too.

• C / C++
• Rust
• TypeScript
• Haxe
• Kotlin

Though I only have read into C/C++ and TypeScript. Both can run everywhere and developed everywhere, but each have their own limitations.

[EisenbergEffect]

@Mike-EEE I have no problem with other opinions. I'm a pretty diverse developer myself, having worked with many different backend and frontend technologies over the years and having built a few myself. The problem I have is when someone makes broad sweeping statements based on information that is 5-10yrs out of date or completely incorrect. But beyond that, when someone, as part of their opinions, then proceeds to call people "idiot" or say they have "brain damage" or that a group of people's work is "complete garbage", that's actually a violation of the Code of Conduct associated with this repository (and most open source projects on GitHub).

[Mike-E-angelo]

LOL yeah @EisenbergEffect you have a point. Though, I have always taken that to mean as a personal assault towards an individual (that is, personal attacks). From what I gathered those statements were towards a group in general and not towards a particular person. Fair game IMO but I do not own the repo.

Additionally, since this repo is essentially dead now I am not sure you are going to see any banhammers. That's not to say that I would absolutely love to see an unlurking for that purpose as it would be the only sad interaction any owner of this repo has had with its membership for the past six months. I'm a glutton for tragedy what can I say. 😆

[GeraudFabien]

SEE? THIS REPO IS VALUABLE AFTER ALL.

This repo from the start was valuable for one thinks. The thinks that make me made this Issue to be sincere. This repo since is very start made debate for the whole .net. Not only XAML but also the community, the future. I am truly happy to see so much of point of view. No repo have this secret power of making the people thinks about "all" before "one". I mean look at the #97 or #57. They don't just talk about one subject because the goal and roadmap of this repo does not exist. So every one has made is own. And this lead to thread like this.

@EisenbergEffect I agree MS is lead by business (and money). .Net is too. But Linux is too. In fact the part of Linux code didn't write by employee of the fortune 500 is nearly none existing. OSS is a different way to thinks business but it still money related.

For WASM it will not be a big thinks before 2020. Even if all current browser have it you can't make a web that don't target most of the user. But it already the biggest thinks (in my pov) of this decade because every dev thinks of the new use of this generic IL. (I read MS thead talking about the future ability to make an APP in typescript who call C# and Java code for any reason. Who use go for some part and C++ in other and all with just a right click add reference).

CSS and HTML are broken. But XAML is too. It's too verbose. Hard for newbie to understand and to make correct style (That what make a lot of XAML user want a CSS like feature).

@Mike-EEE :)

Though, I have always taken that to mean as a personal assault towards an individual (that is, personal attacks).

All the dev I know (and myself) defend they're idea with strength.

[dotMorten]

All these ridiculous off topic / derailed discussions in this repo is part of why this thing is dead. Please show some community spirit and get back on topic. If we don't stand United but continue this insane moaning, slandering, irrelevant discussions I don't see how we can have a big voice towards Microsoft in making the standard actually happen.