Gerald Bauer
2004-10-05 03:47:54 UTC
Hello,
Ryan Dawson has written up a blog story titled "Avalon Knock-Offs
Don't Make the Cut".
Ryan writes:
Lately I have been testing the Avalon knock-offs, VG.Net and Xamlon,
to name the ones I am aware of.
I would have to say that I am pretty impressed by what both companies
have done. They are both in release about a year after the initial
PDC that started it all, and they both seem to be healthy.
Xamlon is going more for the ultimate compatibility road to Avalon,
while VG.NET is more about having the best platform while borrowing
ideas from Avalon and XAML.
To both companies, I like what you are doing, but I think you both
miss the boat; here is what people want:
1. People aren't going to switch to Avalon for XAML. Not a chance.
It just happens to be a neat serialization format that is easy-to-use
for designers (the software type). Also, it can double as a
text-based programming language (like HTML) which means it simplifies
development for trivial tasks. On the other hand, you guys have put
so much time and effort into having compatibility and what not with
Avalon, and I think it's a waste of time. It reminds me of a post by
Rory where he explains how everyone on SourceForge spends so much time
setting up the license type and administrative details, but they never
get around to actually writing a product.
2. Vector graphics are cool and everything but, not by themselves.
Vectors are great because they have scalability. Although, it only
works if you can get everything vector-ized. A vector graphic sitting
in the background of my application is never something that I have
wanted. Granted that bitmaps don't scale, I am happy using them for
background transparent images, and they work great. So, bringing the
ability to put a vector image in my application is nonsense. What I
want are controls that are completely vector-ized, period.
3. One of the biggest keys to productivity that the .Net Framework
does not currently (<= 1.1) have is a state of the art layout engine.
This is by far one of the biggest keys to development of a UI. The
amount of dumb code that I used to write for resizing and layout was
huge. It reminds me of type mapping for databases to CLR types. Both
are dumb code and very error prone. I didn't see a layout engine in
either of these products. I may have just not noticed it, but that is
a huge mistake on both parts. Huge.
4. I want a custom TextBox. That is all. When I get that, I will
go back to my corner and never say another thing again. The same
applies to all controls, but the TextBox is the worst since it is
drawn by Windows. Back to the vector point; people don't want vector
graphics, they want controls -those are what compose applications, not
stupid pictures. On the simple side, I just want controls with
borders that are anything but square (and no, simply setting the
Region property is not good enough, it's too rough). Rounded is in.
Just like any designer will tell you - ebony is the new black. Round
is the new square.
5. Both companies went after animation (Xamlon for 3D, VG.Net for
2D more like Avalon). Animation is great, although, again,
animation of stupid little pictures is the biggest feature that people
will not put into their programs. People want menus that use cool
animation (gravity) - or any feature that opens and closes; or the way
controls populate and de-populate a form like expose for Mac.
Simple animations will not cut it unless you have a full support
through the platform.
I don't want to sound like a jerk but, they both should have just
teamed up and wrote a new composition engine where they could get
everything right. I mean, it's a hard problem without solving some
platform issues.
I only mentioned things that I know are possible using GDI+ and .NET.
These don't include things that Avalon (itself) is going to have a
hard time with on XP.
If I have anything wrong, please correct me!
Source:
http://www.longhornblogs.com/rdawson/archive/2004/10/04/5807.aspx
Do you agree with Ryan or is Ryan all wrong? Let us know what you
think.
- Gerald
---------------------------
Gerald Bauer
Rich Client Conference (RichCon) 2005 - http://richcon.com
XUL News Wire - http://xulnews.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/nhFolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Ryan Dawson has written up a blog story titled "Avalon Knock-Offs
Don't Make the Cut".
Ryan writes:
Lately I have been testing the Avalon knock-offs, VG.Net and Xamlon,
to name the ones I am aware of.
I would have to say that I am pretty impressed by what both companies
have done. They are both in release about a year after the initial
PDC that started it all, and they both seem to be healthy.
Xamlon is going more for the ultimate compatibility road to Avalon,
while VG.NET is more about having the best platform while borrowing
ideas from Avalon and XAML.
To both companies, I like what you are doing, but I think you both
miss the boat; here is what people want:
1. People aren't going to switch to Avalon for XAML. Not a chance.
It just happens to be a neat serialization format that is easy-to-use
for designers (the software type). Also, it can double as a
text-based programming language (like HTML) which means it simplifies
development for trivial tasks. On the other hand, you guys have put
so much time and effort into having compatibility and what not with
Avalon, and I think it's a waste of time. It reminds me of a post by
Rory where he explains how everyone on SourceForge spends so much time
setting up the license type and administrative details, but they never
get around to actually writing a product.
2. Vector graphics are cool and everything but, not by themselves.
Vectors are great because they have scalability. Although, it only
works if you can get everything vector-ized. A vector graphic sitting
in the background of my application is never something that I have
wanted. Granted that bitmaps don't scale, I am happy using them for
background transparent images, and they work great. So, bringing the
ability to put a vector image in my application is nonsense. What I
want are controls that are completely vector-ized, period.
3. One of the biggest keys to productivity that the .Net Framework
does not currently (<= 1.1) have is a state of the art layout engine.
This is by far one of the biggest keys to development of a UI. The
amount of dumb code that I used to write for resizing and layout was
huge. It reminds me of type mapping for databases to CLR types. Both
are dumb code and very error prone. I didn't see a layout engine in
either of these products. I may have just not noticed it, but that is
a huge mistake on both parts. Huge.
4. I want a custom TextBox. That is all. When I get that, I will
go back to my corner and never say another thing again. The same
applies to all controls, but the TextBox is the worst since it is
drawn by Windows. Back to the vector point; people don't want vector
graphics, they want controls -those are what compose applications, not
stupid pictures. On the simple side, I just want controls with
borders that are anything but square (and no, simply setting the
Region property is not good enough, it's too rough). Rounded is in.
Just like any designer will tell you - ebony is the new black. Round
is the new square.
5. Both companies went after animation (Xamlon for 3D, VG.Net for
2D more like Avalon). Animation is great, although, again,
animation of stupid little pictures is the biggest feature that people
will not put into their programs. People want menus that use cool
animation (gravity) - or any feature that opens and closes; or the way
controls populate and de-populate a form like expose for Mac.
Simple animations will not cut it unless you have a full support
through the platform.
I don't want to sound like a jerk but, they both should have just
teamed up and wrote a new composition engine where they could get
everything right. I mean, it's a hard problem without solving some
platform issues.
I only mentioned things that I know are possible using GDI+ and .NET.
These don't include things that Avalon (itself) is going to have a
hard time with on XP.
If I have anything wrong, please correct me!
Source:
http://www.longhornblogs.com/rdawson/archive/2004/10/04/5807.aspx
Do you agree with Ryan or is Ryan all wrong? Let us know what you
think.
- Gerald
---------------------------
Gerald Bauer
Rich Client Conference (RichCon) 2005 - http://richcon.com
XUL News Wire - http://xulnews.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/nhFolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->