News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on New York Times abandons WPF and Silverlight in favor of AIR. Parent comment

Re:New York Times abandons WPF and Silverlight in favor of AIR by smhinsey on Friday May 22, 2009 @03:30PM (#622589)
I am not totally convinced that WPF & Silverlight are even in competition with one another. They are both based on the same core technology, XAML. Without knowing what Microsoft's long term plans (presuming they have them) for the two technologies, it's hard to say with any certainty whether or not they intend to converge the two eventually or phase one out in favor of the other.

I am not really sure how great of an indicators book are. All of the "usual suspect" publishers either have books on the topic or are working on them.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times abandons WPF and Silverlight in favor of AIR by TomOfTTB on Friday May 22, 2009 @03:48PM (#622614)
What I'm saying is I don't think it matters what Microsoft is going to do. With XNA being the way to write games now and Silverlight V3 looking like it can do everything WPF can (in a (theoretically) multi-platform enviornment to boot) why would anyone choose WPF?

As for books, the fact that there are already dramatically more Silverlight books out there and it came out after WPF I'd say that indicates something.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times abandons WPF and Silverlight in favor of AIR by smhinsey on Friday May 22, 2009 @03:52PM (#622621)
That's sort of what I was getting at, in other words, you don't really need to make a choice between silverlight and WPF because they are essentially the same thing. Maybe this is just another example in the litany of awful branding mistakes Microsoft has made around .NET?

As far as books go, I'm not surprised that there are more Silverlight books than WPF. Web-centric technology books are in general more popular than desktop-centric books, particularly in the MS universe.

[ Parent | on HN ]