6 ms·

Winforms, wpf, blazor, maui, avalonia, what are you talking about

jdw64 4mo ago
Alright. I'm actually fine with WinForms and WPF since my factory floor codes depend on them. But the reality is they aren't expressive enough for modern UIs. XAML is an issue, and WPF is boilerplate hell. But then Blazor is too heavy, MAUI is broken and buggy, Avalonia is underwhelming, and WinUI 3 is an absolute nightmare.
- sedatk 4mo ago
  > Avalonia is underwhelming How? Can you elaborate?
  - jdw64 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - vitally3643 4mo ago
    Not OP, but I've found Avalonia to be pretty much a direct replacement for WinForms. I mean that both as a compliment and a deserved insult. It's not the WinForms we wanted, but it is the one we deserve. More seriously, it has all the strengths and weaknesses of WinForms and feels about exactly as unfinished and rough as WinForms. I still have to implement custom widgets that i would have expected to be included out of the box. It's nice that it's cross-platform, though with all the rough edges that cross-platform .net still has. It really, truly feels exactly like every C# UI framework I've ever used in the last 20 years: almost good, not quite finished, and takes an amount of effort that is just unreasonable compared to any other language/framework of any age. I've been a C# dev for most of my career. I have more fun writing UIs from scratch by drawing individual pixels in C++ than any C# UI.
    - sedatk 4mo ago
      I'm truly surprised that it feels that underdeveloped. They market Avalonia as a direct replacement for WPF too. So, I'd expect it at least match WPF to be fair.
      - vitally3643 4mo ago
        I would argue quite fervently that WinForms is more than a match for WPF. The only thing worse than WPF is UWP. We don't talk about UWP.
- Rohansi 4mo ago
  > But the reality is they aren't expressive enough for modern UIs Other than web tech, what actually is expressive enough?
  - tancop 4mo ago
    [dead]
Salgat 4mo ago
What I don't get is why Java doesn't get dogged for desktop UI like C# does.
- blanched 4mo ago
  Because Microsoft pushes C#/dotnet as the preferred way to write UI on Windows.
  - Salgat 4mo ago
    Which, for specifically Windows, it works perfectly fine. The only complaints I've heard is for a cross-platform UI framework.
- NetMageSCW 4mo ago
  Because people have given up that battle and just except that Java UI is crap.
ethin 4mo ago
Eto.forms too...

jdw64 4mo ago

Alright. I'm actually fine with WinForms and WPF since my factory floor codes depend on them. But the reality is they aren't expressive enough for modern UIs. XAML is an issue, and WPF is boilerplate hell. But then Blazor is too heavy, MAUI is broken and buggy, Avalonia is underwhelming, and WinUI 3 is an absolute nightmare.

sedatk 4mo ago
> Avalonia is underwhelming How? Can you elaborate?
- jdw64 4mo ago
  [dead]
- vitally3643 4mo ago
  Not OP, but I've found Avalonia to be pretty much a direct replacement for WinForms. I mean that both as a compliment and a deserved insult. It's not the WinForms we wanted, but it is the one we deserve. More seriously, it has all the strengths and weaknesses of WinForms and feels about exactly as unfinished and rough as WinForms. I still have to implement custom widgets that i would have expected to be included out of the box. It's nice that it's cross-platform, though with all the rough edges that cross-platform .net still has. It really, truly feels exactly like every C# UI framework I've ever used in the last 20 years: almost good, not quite finished, and takes an amount of effort that is just unreasonable compared to any other language/framework of any age. I've been a C# dev for most of my career. I have more fun writing UIs from scratch by drawing individual pixels in C++ than any C# UI.
  - sedatk 4mo ago
    I'm truly surprised that it feels that underdeveloped. They market Avalonia as a direct replacement for WPF too. So, I'd expect it at least match WPF to be fair.
    - vitally3643 4mo ago
      I would argue quite fervently that WinForms is more than a match for WPF. The only thing worse than WPF is UWP. We don't talk about UWP.
Rohansi 4mo ago
> But the reality is they aren't expressive enough for modern UIs Other than web tech, what actually is expressive enough?
- tancop 4mo ago
  [dead]

Salgat 4mo ago

What I don't get is why Java doesn't get dogged for desktop UI like C# does.

blanched 4mo ago
Because Microsoft pushes C#/dotnet as the preferred way to write UI on Windows.
- Salgat 4mo ago
  Which, for specifically Windows, it works perfectly fine. The only complaints I've heard is for a cross-platform UI framework.
NetMageSCW 4mo ago
Because people have given up that battle and just except that Java UI is crap.

ethin 4mo ago

Eto.forms too...