What about store managers restocking product?
What about developers working on complicated projects?
What about data scientists staring at spreadsheets?
What about power users?
What about anyone with the kind of intelligence that doesn't shy away from large amounts of information?
Do most designers ever think about ANY of these people? Modern app design doesn't even TRY to throw any of these types a bone. No "Advanced >" menus anymore, no pages of options anymore, nothing. It's all just 'sit down, shut up, push the button like a good stupid little user so we can all get paid.'
If the UX and latency requirements can be met with a web app, it doesn't support WPF/.NET maintenance/enhancement.
Web apps can do density so long as the latency requirements aren't too tight. There's where the banking folks spend their IT money.
they're generic applications, and their development
doesn't justify Microsoft investing in an entire stack.
Seems to me there's one or two applications for every profession, and they probably mount up.I mean, I'm sure if you look at the statistics only 0.1% of users use Photoshop, or Premiere Pro, or AutoCAD, or SolidWorks, or Altium, or Matlab, or whatever - but if you drop support for all of them, what are users going to do?
Specifically, when WPF was launched all they could talk about were the cool 3D possibilities for doctors, researchers, and such... The reality has been less "Minority Report" than we had hoped, but those kinds of demands are growing, and very often will require the level of control over hardware that demands a desktop app.
In theory a lot of this is solvable with webapps, in practice there is a reason desktop computing environments exist :)
(Visual Studio for Mac is, of course, an entirely different product and codebase).
The brand name has been re-used for other software. Visual Studio for Mac is Xamarin. Visual Studio Code is on the Electron platform.
”For a long time now developers have been asking why Visual Studio hasn’t made to switch to 64-bit. Rather than effort or opportunity cost, the primary reason is performance.” https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/01/VS-64-bit
The new plugin architecture, replacing the COM one, is implemented in .NET.
Visual Studio for Mac has many new features that weren't present in Xamarin Studio, like .NET Core support, ASP.NET types of workflows. And all new Xamarin.Forms improvements are shared between both IDEs.
The question is whether there's enough of a market between broad-based professional apps and web apps to justify maintenance of the WPF/.NET stack.
I can understand a "Is it worth the maintenance?" question...
but I would bet .Net has better longevity and Enterprise support compared to the rapidly evolving landscape of HTML/CSS/Javascript.
BUT ... it's not clear to me that the majority of enterprise software development falls into this category. I think the vast majority is quite likely old VB apps that work perfectly well as web apps.
Most information workers don't have the density or latency constraints that the finance space does.
And where they do, I think in most cases their needs are satisfied by a small-ish set of applications: Excel, AutoCAD/ProE/Solidworks/etc, Photoshop/Illustrator/etc, VisualStudio, and so on.
I do think Microsoft (and Windows) needs a story for the development of "professional" apps like these. And UWP doesn't work for them. I'm not sure C# and WPF does either: how many of even Microsoft's own professional apps are written (or being rewritten) in C#?
Perhaps banking/trading is just too small a market to make it worth Microsoft's while to care about? Perhaps it's a market best served by a third-party stack/tools?