"It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be additive biproduct / bonus rounds outside that.
Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well behind us now. --- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.riagenic.com On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) <g...@greglow.com> wrote: > So it then comes back to tooling again. > > > > Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it > deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix > the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model. > > > > Regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Dr Greg Low > > > > 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 > fax > > SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express > > > > I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web > world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as > “the web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these > clients – it’s simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients” > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com <ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] *On Behalf Of *Nathan > Schultz > *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express > > > > As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key > drivers were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients > are simply not transportable. > > So the simple answer is, you don't. > > > > On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote: > > > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz > *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express > > > > @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of > Martin Fowler's. > > Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt > ;-) > > > > I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world > (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a > quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different > OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities). > > > > I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you > were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s > breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d > need to ship etc? > > >
