Are you factoring in strategic value or just pure cash? Microsoft wants a living room play. They want to be a player in entertainment. Now they are, and they have a year over year profitable division executing it. That's worth more than only what's on the balance sheet.
Silly. First, how many people are actually thinking about the topic at all? I'll make up a statistic just as imaginary as yours: 1 in a million. So, our stats being equal in validity, 1 in 8 think Microsoft will be successful, right? (rhetorical)
Second, he said "there's a very real possibility" - that's his CYA qualifier, and thus he isn't necessarily saying they *will* just that they *might* gain market share. He didn't say what "very real" means (1%? 10%? 50%?) or how much market share (1%? 10% 50%?).
It's just silly for either of you to try and pundit things out - neither of you have facts or references to anything actually insightful. The parent post just states the obvious, and you're just making stuff up.
Well, it's a fair bit more complicated than that. You wouldn't necessarily want to write for a platform that has 15 apps just like yours, even if there are 20 times as many potential customers. It does sense to target a platform where you'd be unique.
What cheap parlor tricks are you referring to? You mean trying to make a UI look cool by slathering on gradient fills? Oh wait, that's Android and iOS.
Bing does the exact same things. I'm not sure what your point is. Whether or not you view Bing as inferior, you just haven't done the 30 seconds of basic research before making a useless point.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
The T cells they engineered targeted CD19, which exists on leukemia cancer cells. Apparently, they also engineered versions that would work against lung, pancreatic, and brain cancers. Cancer may be a type of disease, but keep in mind that this therapy is a type of treatment.
I'll be truly happy when javascript jockeys finally discover the benefits of compilation and stronger typing and stop treating the rest of us developers like we don't understand some brave new world or something.
Sorry, I just don't see "web apps" as being any kind of meaningful term. It's not an application model, it's a deployment model, which is a different thing. The bits come down through some channel and execute on your system. Some bits execute remotely, but that's been happening for decades.
I agree with this. There's so many comments here that are just general MS bashing that have absolutely nothing to do with TFA, it's just sad.
How can one tell if it's relevant? Just switch the roles - MS invents WebGL and Google refuses to support it citing security problems. Then, reread the comment. If the comment now makes no sense, it was relevant to the original. If the comment still kinda makes sense, it's -1, Off Topic.
And if WebGL was invented by Microsoft, and it were Google and Mozilla who wouldn't support it, you could still post this. Whether your point is valid or not, this doesn't have anything to do with the TFA.
Silverlight developers aren't upset because Silverlight is dead. They are upset because they don't know if it's dead or not. They are in limbo, and that's the most uncomfortable position to be in.
Microsoft should just come out and say, "Silverlight is dead. Learn HTML5 and Javascript. Here's some tools and docs to help you port. Sorry." I think most SL developers will either abandon Microsoft entirely, or dive right into HTML5/JS - and then abandon MS entirely.
To me, the ironic part is that WPF - the one that most people are whispering about being dead - is actually the most likely to survive. There's still a healthy market for desktop apps, and WPF is the only modern game in town for that. Silverlight went outside the desktop house to play in Web land and is about to get eaten by the HTML5 Grue. WPF, safely playing checkers inside the house, is about to get some of its dev team back.
I agree - I abhor Javascript development and want to use a compiled language (C#). Microsoft looks like it's throwing WPF under the bus at this stage, relegating it to LOB apps, for which WinForms are actually better and easier for. Where does WPF fit in anymore?
Supposing it really is JS/HTML5, apps are still going to need something to do the hard code work in..NET has very good interoperability while JS has next to none. So, my guess is that they will enable development of "backend" desktop services using.NET, keeping the UI / tiles layer HTML5/JS.
But still, through all this, after all the WPF learning I've been doing, I just don't see a big future in using such a complex technology to write legacy apps.
To the question about killing the software industry: No way. Seriously, do you see software companies becoming any less prolific today than ever? I don't. It's incredible to me how much (quality) software is churned out on a daily basis, processes in place.
That said, the question about whether heavy process can kill ones creativity - yeah, absolutely. Some programmers become frustrated more quickly when there are barriers between their ideas and their code hitting the download sites. That's normal, and there isn't anything wrong with that. I'm one of those programmers, and that's why I always pursue my own side projects. That's our outlet, and once in a blue moon one of us makes something phenomenal, without the processes. Once in a while.
But to imply that such programmers are so great in number that it would kill the software industry is just not realistic. There are simply a huge number of creative developers who can work within the constraints given to them.
Come on... being familiar with other languages you must be able to see this -- right? I mean... "XAML, templates, styles, and data-bindings." All designed from the ground up to be easily representable in an IDE that already uses those concepts to perform refactoring....
XAML was designed from the ground up to be a declarative way to express object heirarchy and relationships. Nothing to do with an IDE. Templates were designed as a way to customize declared UI at a visual level. Nothing to do with an IDE. Styles were designed as a simple way to set properties on objects and react to property changes. Nothing to do with an IDE. Data Binding was designed as a way to declaratively ensure that properties and UI can reflect data declaratively. Nothing to do with an IDE.
In fact, if you dig, you'll find that IDE extensions in XAML to do things like design-time sizes and settings are done in a completely different XML namespace than XAML.
I really don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you factoring in strategic value or just pure cash? Microsoft wants a living room play. They want to be a player in entertainment. Now they are, and they have a year over year profitable division executing it. That's worth more than only what's on the balance sheet.
Silly. First, how many people are actually thinking about the topic at all? I'll make up a statistic just as imaginary as yours: 1 in a million. So, our stats being equal in validity, 1 in 8 think Microsoft will be successful, right? (rhetorical)
Second, he said "there's a very real possibility" - that's his CYA qualifier, and thus he isn't necessarily saying they *will* just that they *might* gain market share. He didn't say what "very real" means (1%? 10%? 50%?) or how much market share (1%? 10% 50%?).
It's just silly for either of you to try and pundit things out - neither of you have facts or references to anything actually insightful. The parent post just states the obvious, and you're just making stuff up.
Oops, I actually mean "20 apps just like yours, even if there are 15 times..."
Well, it's a fair bit more complicated than that. You wouldn't necessarily want to write for a platform that has 15 apps just like yours, even if there are 20 times as many potential customers. It does sense to target a platform where you'd be unique.
What cheap parlor tricks are you referring to? You mean trying to make a UI look cool by slathering on gradient fills? Oh wait, that's Android and iOS.
Bing does the exact same things. I'm not sure what your point is. Whether or not you view Bing as inferior, you just haven't done the 30 seconds of basic research before making a useless point.
The T cells they engineered targeted CD19, which exists on leukemia cancer cells. Apparently, they also engineered versions that would work against lung, pancreatic, and brain cancers. Cancer may be a type of disease, but keep in mind that this therapy is a type of treatment.
I went to Best Buy and on display were the Xoom, the new Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the iPad 2.
Scrolling around, web browsing, and other things, the 2 android tabs were choppy. iPad was smooth as silk.
Looking at the shell, the 2 android tabs have a lot going on. That's confusing. iPad is just a bunch of icons, but I get it.
The iPad 2 was way nicer to hold than the Xoom, though the Galaxy was, IMO, the iPad's equal in this regard.
Overall, the iPad 2 just feels like a refined device, and the Android tabs feel like, well, a Microsoft solution.
iPad 2 wins, and therefore gets the developers.
I used IE9 and found it pretty decent and fast. I tried the sharp stick in my eye and found that to be significantly worse.
I'll be truly happy when javascript jockeys finally discover the benefits of compilation and stronger typing and stop treating the rest of us developers like we don't understand some brave new world or something.
Sorry, I just don't see "web apps" as being any kind of meaningful term. It's not an application model, it's a deployment model, which is a different thing. The bits come down through some channel and execute on your system. Some bits execute remotely, but that's been happening for decades.
I agree with this. There's so many comments here that are just general MS bashing that have absolutely nothing to do with TFA, it's just sad.
How can one tell if it's relevant? Just switch the roles - MS invents WebGL and Google refuses to support it citing security problems. Then, reread the comment. If the comment now makes no sense, it was relevant to the original. If the comment still kinda makes sense, it's -1, Off Topic.
No more so than in previous years. Last I checked, Chrome and Firefox run great on Windows and have always been far more capable browsers than IE.
And if WebGL was invented by Microsoft, and it were Google and Mozilla who wouldn't support it, you could still post this. Whether your point is valid or not, this doesn't have anything to do with the TFA.
I think picking on the acronym is a nice way to sidestep talking about Microsoft actually doing something cool.
Silverlight developers aren't upset because Silverlight is dead. They are upset because they don't know if it's dead or not. They are in limbo, and that's the most uncomfortable position to be in.
Microsoft should just come out and say, "Silverlight is dead. Learn HTML5 and Javascript. Here's some tools and docs to help you port. Sorry." I think most SL developers will either abandon Microsoft entirely, or dive right into HTML5/JS - and then abandon MS entirely.
To me, the ironic part is that WPF - the one that most people are whispering about being dead - is actually the most likely to survive. There's still a healthy market for desktop apps, and WPF is the only modern game in town for that. Silverlight went outside the desktop house to play in Web land and is about to get eaten by the HTML5 Grue. WPF, safely playing checkers inside the house, is about to get some of its dev team back.
I agree - I abhor Javascript development and want to use a compiled language (C#). Microsoft looks like it's throwing WPF under the bus at this stage, relegating it to LOB apps, for which WinForms are actually better and easier for. Where does WPF fit in anymore?
Supposing it really is JS/HTML5, apps are still going to need something to do the hard code work in. .NET has very good interoperability while JS has next to none. So, my guess is that they will enable development of "backend" desktop services using .NET, keeping the UI / tiles layer HTML5/JS.
But still, through all this, after all the WPF learning I've been doing, I just don't see a big future in using such a complex technology to write legacy apps.
No, but if you get 5 of them in different colors, they form Docotron, a huge robot 120 feet high with a sword.
You know when you see one of those awesome 80's guitarists with a double-guitar? It's like that.
I'm not paying $400 for a browser.
I use lib777, so my code looks like:
while(!wantToLand)
my777.StayUp();
my777.Land();
There is no crash in the code.
To the question about killing the software industry: No way. Seriously, do you see software companies becoming any less prolific today than ever? I don't. It's incredible to me how much (quality) software is churned out on a daily basis, processes in place.
That said, the question about whether heavy process can kill ones creativity - yeah, absolutely. Some programmers become frustrated more quickly when there are barriers between their ideas and their code hitting the download sites. That's normal, and there isn't anything wrong with that. I'm one of those programmers, and that's why I always pursue my own side projects. That's our outlet, and once in a blue moon one of us makes something phenomenal, without the processes. Once in a while.
But to imply that such programmers are so great in number that it would kill the software industry is just not realistic. There are simply a huge number of creative developers who can work within the constraints given to them.
Maybe, but they'd never survive the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief
Well, Osama's compound had no internet, anyways, so it's not like he could have gotten any early warning.
Come on... being familiar with other languages you must be able to see this -- right? I mean... "XAML, templates, styles, and data-bindings." All designed from the ground up to be easily representable in an IDE that already uses those concepts to perform refactoring....
XAML was designed from the ground up to be a declarative way to express object heirarchy and relationships. Nothing to do with an IDE.
Templates were designed as a way to customize declared UI at a visual level. Nothing to do with an IDE.
Styles were designed as a simple way to set properties on objects and react to property changes. Nothing to do with an IDE.
Data Binding was designed as a way to declaratively ensure that properties and UI can reflect data declaratively. Nothing to do with an IDE.
In fact, if you dig, you'll find that IDE extensions in XAML to do things like design-time sizes and settings are done in a completely different XML namespace than XAML.
I really don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of that.