Timeline for Please explain the benefit(s) of using an XML-based syntax (e.g. XAML) instead of normal source code (e.g. WinForms)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2012 at 15:07 | comment | added | MarkJ | I'm suggesting Blend could have been a designer-oriented GUI that created C# code files. The designer need not have been familiar with the structure of a C# code file, just like they don't have to understand the internal binary structure of a JPG or PNG in order to create images in Photoshop. | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 12:58 | comment | added | Jon Raynor | @MarkJ - Blend is specifically geared toward designers, prior to that it was just drag/drop in Visual Studio. Prior to WPF, windows forms had limited built in functionality for animation and GUI bling. Blend could have existed prior, but the designer would need to be familar with C# or .net (.cs) code files. XAML you can markup which is something a designer is already familiar with (HTML, XML, etc.) | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 0:01 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | It really does look like a reinvention of the wheel to those of us using Delphi. It's had a simple, code-independent DSL for form layout since the very beginning (1995), and without all the ugly, bulky baggage that XML carries with it. | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 21:51 | comment | added | MarkJ | That's a benefit of the Blend tool, not XAML? Blend could have existed as a designer-oriented GUI that created code behind the scenes? | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 21:45 | comment | added | kevin cline | The author of your link compares XAML with a pretty verbose general purpose programming language. Maybe XAML is more compact than C# or Java. That's a point against C# and Java, not really a point in favor of XAML. The equivalent Ruby code would be just as compact, with the full power of Ruby available if needed. | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 20:43 | history | answered | Jon Raynor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |