Welcome to McFunley.com Sign in | Join | Faq

Is XAML an Elaborate Joke?

posted on Sunday, April 29, 2007 7:54 PM by mcfunley

Don Box says:
As a WPF user, I spend at least as much time reading and writing XAML as I do reading/writing C# code that does WPF-isms. I do spend a lot of time in C#, but little of it is WPF specific, which arguably is one of the strengths of WPF’s data/content facilities.

In my opinion, the sooner folks get thrown into the XAML pool the sooner they learn to swim.

(Emphasis mine.)
I thought the whole point of selling our souls to the XML devils was that development tools would deal with that slop for us.

Forget swimming. I am having trouble seeing any non-masochistic reason for me to learn this at all. I am just not getting through the Microsoft marketing on this one. I say this as somebody with deep-to-extremely-deep knowledge of most of the Microsoft tools of the last 10 years--I'm not Don Box, but I'm also no slouch.

Give me one good reason why I should spend my spare time learning an API that looks like this. (And it would be my spare time. I am still living here in the real world, where it still seems to be occasionally more practical to write Windows platform code in C++, for god's sake.)

Wikipedia reassures me--in a rather hilarious, pleonastic way--that this is "simply XML."
[A] key aspect of the technology is the reduced complexity needed for tools to process XAML, because it is simply XML. As a result, a variety of products are emerging, particularly in the WPF space, which create XAML-based applications. As XAML is simply based on XML, developers and designers are able to share and edit content freely amongst themselves without requiring compilation.

(Emphasis mine.)
Show me one XML-based API that does not, in one way or another, prove this to be an oxymoron. (See also: "Java programmer writes application which reads 243 XML files on startup then wonders why it takes 30 seconds to start." Thanks, Slava.)

Sometimes trite observations become trite because they are obviously correct. Who created the creator? Why re-invent the s-expressions that have been around since the 50's, but poorly? Et cetera. In these cases the fact that the criticism is well-worn does nothing to detract from it.

Maybe I am just being a grizzled old fogey (at the incredibly advanced age of 27.)  It wouldn't be the first time that I have been described as a crotchety septugenarian in the body of a young adult. If I am way off the mark here, please enlighten me.

Update, May 20th: Jon Harrop avoids my bitching and gives solutions. See XAML or F#.

Comments

# re: Is XAML an Elaborate Joke? @ Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:17 PM

I think that things will change once the development tools are released like the MS Expression line and VS 2007. Right not I think it is safe to say WPF isn't really up to the level that most MS developers expect.

  Jonathan Allen

# re: Is XAML an Elaborate Joke? @ Monday, April 30, 2007 5:18 AM

Dan I don't understand why you find the XAML in the link you provided so difficult to like. To me it's simple to grasp the intent of the application. An equivilant sample written in code would likely be much larger and not as coherent.

  Andrew Hilton

# re: Is XAML an Elaborate Joke? @ Monday, April 30, 2007 6:00 AM

"Walled garden, let me out..."

Delusionals.
Only M$ofties think xaml is cool.
Having to rely on tools to code is just the panacea of lock-in strategy.

  script kiddie

# re: Is XAML an Elaborate Joke? @ Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:37 PM

hey dan -

i think you're spot on - xaml and its associated ilk really don't improve the situation.

xml itself doesn't have to be evil, but i find that many people who fall in love with it labor under the illusion that their core problem could somehow be delegated to it AND that the problem could never be solved without it.

we got along fine for years without xml.

the tools may change, but the problems remain the same.

-eric

  ejohnson8192

SKIN NAME : ImageHeader