If the cost was low, this would be a very different conversation and very likely a different outcome. We have enough trouble being compatible with OpenSSL and that's just one library. Kryptos-FR MS is just taking the position from my perspective of they're not going to spend money supporting platforms they don't 'directly' make money in or is hard for them to measure the value of short term which is a little off as they supports macOS but only for the sake it brings in Azure developers not realizing I think people need better client side tools to even use Azure [thats a larger topic though].
There is a lot of value in a cross platform XAML that looks the same on every platform, is compile type checked, has a visual editor in an IDE and based around the. NET or C eco system. MS has at least given people a starting point if they have the resources to port it which is far more than I expected to happen tbh. If these apps were using Azure it would end up making MS money in the long run.
People who don't see this value are a little disconnected I think. NET Core has solved the cross platform issues in its eco system in every aspect besides the desktop and client side no HTML is not the answer for many reasons. It is in some ways both MS's and the communities responsibility to solve that remaining client side UI issue as both parties will share the rewards.
- Can we run a C#/WPF application on Mac OS X? - Stack Overflow.
- best spell checker for mac.
- System Requirements.
In this case I think the community has to start the trail rolling. NET Core has for Windows now could be made. If that makes sense. However the gravity to use existing knowledge and code bases is probably strong for WPF.
From what I can tell. Its a lot faster to dev with for sure. Considering how well-loved WPF is to so many people, you might be faced with a multitude of endless repeats of this issue. By taking the current approach, it simply does not "read well" and comes off cold-hearted through no bad intent of yours, just the situation. I'm just suggesting that it will calm everyone down and leave a "safety valve" if you just leave this open as a kind of "wisdom of the crowds" or just plain old wisdom We can have an open source cross-platform XAML-based UI framework, because we now have WPF open sourced, we can take the stuff and build one, but the one we'll be building is just not WPF, it just won't exist in this repository under the name of Windows Presentation Foundation.
Apparently it's not an easy one to answer. Paradoxically it's far more easier to port winforms cross-platforms as Mono had for years using Wine in comparison to the effort of WPF because of DX and other components. Not the best choice at all, but definitely the fastest. The soft approach could be something like this:. Why not focus on existing projects already modelled from uwp and wpf like http: Without this Avalonia really isn't that different from using some other UI that relies off runtime errors instead of compile time ones. You say we should extend existing projects but why not extend the ones that already have much larger support and tools?
I see nothing wrong with changing direction when new doors open is all I'm getting at. We've tried to port some open-sourced Telerik controls from UWP to Avalonia and discovered that we can't because they are using custom DirectX rendering. Glad to see. NET evolving! Hope Avalonia will also become a part of. NET Foundation someday.
Really an impressive framework with poweful styling system. WPF, beloved by many developers, could borrow some ideas from that framework, like value conversion syntax , binding to async values or binding from code. Worth mentioning, that we can already create cross-platform applications using ReactiveUI or Caliburn. Communities don't get to make demands on people who give their hard work away for free. Even if it's Micrsoft and even if you hate them. See Rich Hickey creator of Clojure 's comment here: The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to work are people who run projects, and the scope of their entitlement extends only to their own projects.
Just because someone open sources something does not imply they owe the world a change in their status, focus and effort, e. As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. Asking for it, asking about it, is OK.
Stating that someone needs to listen to you because you have demands and you want more free things, is not OK. Your example is excellent https: Now although slightly off topic if we could have alignment on frameworks too Prism, Cross, Caliburn, MvvmLight that could support all platforms, for scenarios simple and complex depending on the platform for navigation, menus, good old regions, module injection, etc that will be awesome, so much knowledge, work and many lessons learnt we had with WPF, Silverlight, Xamarin, Avalonia, etc, etc and all the frameworks that have been created to support them.
Let's think together, how to reanimate really great framework, which serves thousands of serious projects perfectly, and do not vaste community resources with to develop another Xamarin, or Silverlight, or UWP, or something another. It's an open source project. You can fork it and do with it whatever you want. If dev team doesn't want to support some other platform it's in their right to do so.
Because being cross-platform is not easy, especially for UI components. It's amazing to me how some people think open source means they get to demand that the maintainers do whatever is asked of them with no right to pursue their own strategic agenda. Microsoft didn't have to open source WPF at all.
I'm extremely glad they did. I've wanted cross platform WPF for many years. Not Avalonia; not Xamarin. Forms though I am a fan of that too ; I wanted to be able to take my existing WPF apps and simply recompile them to other platforms. The only thing that was impeding that from happening was the closed source license the reference source was always public, but it was not licensed to make derivative works. Now that that barrier is gone, cross-platform WPF will eventually happen.
Whether Microsoft bankrolls it is a different story. I don't see Apple or Linux Foundation investing much in Windows app development All that aside, I think the difficulties in making WPF cross platform might be a smidge exaggerated. I've studied the aforementioned reference source extensively. The overwhelming majority of it does not depend on Windows, because unlike Windows Forms, as we all know WPF handles all the rendering from the top level window on down. And when you think about it, WPF was architected to be cross platform, and we know this - why?
Remember, Silverlight ran on MacOS eons ago. So we know it can be done.
NET UX platform much more difficult. I fully understand MSFT position due to currently insignificant market share of Linux desktop and availability of recently aquired Xamarin xplat mobile framework. It does not make sense for company to double invest in xplat UX which would mainly target mobile devices.
However, it is different story with FOSS community.
Cross platform WPF - Full Framework - .NET Foundation Forums
Since none of the UX repos would accept any code for xplat support we have no choice but go for it in independent fork. I would not be surprised if some folks from MSFT would join such community effort on their own though. If anyone wants to join the effort and shape it's goals pls ping me. By any means I am not trying to be the lead of team working on such project nor the lead developer. By living up to the standards of oss communities I would like to participate in a community where every actively contributing member would have equal rights with regard to determining project directions and accepting commits.
You just have to replace some Windows only dependencies with platform agnostic ones. Any open source frameworks like Telerik or whatever that depend on D3D could just get ported at some later date to the newer platform agnostic graphics API this folk of WPF is build on. In short you may want to think of this WPF version as you think of.
NET Core to. But i do think WPF apps made with cross platform in mind could look just fine yes. What do user of those platforms expect? You can share your core code base regardless of what UI framework you use. It is substantially different. The web and mobile solutions like Xamarin were designed from the beginning to be cross-platform , so they handle the differences gracefully. The differences between any two version of Windows are, in terms of UI, superficial.
All versions of Windows use the same controls, and apart from the actual brushes and fonts used, the sizes and metrics are all similar. When you look deeper than the paint, the differences in look, feel, and behavior of a Mac application versus a Windows application are far more significant than a Windows XP versus Windows 7 application. All platforms have plenty of great native applications. And are you going to expect the Visual Studio and Blend teams to throw in support for designing UIs with theme switching to show how your views will look on other platforms?
What exactly do you think would compel Microsoft to rewrite the internals of WPF just to facilitate mediocre support for running on Mac or Linux? I do know a lot of mac users, and in a company when you have a custom program you need to use, you use it period, no one cares if you like it, so mac users are happiER using a wpf ported application, than having to dual boot into Windows to use the exact same application for sure.
Having the rendering abstracted could be an upside. The actual code monkey work is likely, very tiny in comparison to the whole system. Have you actually used wpf? I am sorry but judging from your ideas i think you have never really used wpf. Just write that behavior behavior which is a trivial job for even a mid level wpf programmer. What you are counting as weakness of wpf are actually the strengths of wpf. I think you have not installed the nuget package mahapps. In mahapps. So this is no no reason for not porting wpf to mac or Linux because it will not look like native and will not behave like native in some cases.
So, yes, I have used, abused, and extended WPF to the extreme. From a user interactivity standpoint, the behavior and default look and feel of most core WPF controls closely mimics common Windows controls that have been around for decades. Yes, you can change their visual appearance with custom templates, but the logic, behavior, and underlying model are based on historical Windows conventions , which do not necessarily align with those of other platforms.
I know how it works, and I probably know it a lot better than you. Some certainly do, but not a majority.
The stock experience on alternate platforms would need to be up to par with the stock experience on Windows. Ok fair enough. Ask Question. The application is a time tracking application with a good GUI, there isn't that much business logic in a time tracking application so most of the application is GUI - rewriting just the GUI is equivalent to rewriting the entire application I don't have the resources to rewrite the application or maintain two different code bases, so I need a way to run the same code on a Mac I know I'll have to debug and modify the code, what I mean is I can support only one code base, I can't split the project into different Mac and Windows projects - I just don't have the time to work on two projects.
Nir Nir This is a great warning "question". Anton Gogolev Anton Gogolev Uh Parallels is a virtual machine I have a large enterprise application that is WPF and works under parallels. We were in a similar situation. We had a working Windows project and wanted a Mac version. Our product was in two parts, one a. Net application, the other a Director projector app. Since then we've only updated the Windows version. This is a nice example story to new developer in my opinion. Pick tools that can be used on multiple platforms.
Otherwise you will just find your self in a pickle once the requirements change and execs want the product on Mac or Linux also. Thanks, this sounds like a good possibility silverlight 3 didn't exist when I asked the question , do you use the same xaml and cs files on both platforms? If you wish to spend more time on new features in your current codebase: Rick Rick 2, 1 16 Kelly Kelly 4, 7 45 I Work for Nevron]. Ivaylo Milanov Ivaylo Milanov 99 4. Dmitri Nesteruk Dmitri Nesteruk Humm yea. D then try Wine. Parallels or VMWare is a virtual hardware emulators that can boot Windows.
They emulate hardware.