Parvez Ansari, Microsoft Certified professional gives his rather straight forward view on Flex, Apollo and Flash vs WPF. I think it is more then interesting what state of mind he is in.
He kicks off with this :
“Now a days people are creating hype about Apollo and Flex. When I had a look at what these two products are, I found that Apollo and Flex is just the replica of .NET Framework. They are talking so loud about Flash and Flex. Guys Flash is just an animation software which was made with the intention of being a preloader.”
Wow…so Flex is a replica of .NET ? Let me see…wasn’t it the Avalon team to hire well-known figures from the Flash industry to work on Sparkle ? That being established; I’m not going to tell you what was there first; mxml or xaml. Basically, I just don’t know. What I do know is that Flex 1 has been around a lot longer then the similar MS tech….
Furthermore Parvez states :
“It cannot take place of programming Language.”
….you obviously havn’t seen what AS3 (yes it’s a scripting language, I know) in the hands of a developer can do….
‘Apollo people are giving counts of Apollo runtime downloads. Dot NET Framework is downloaded four times more than their Apollo runtime.”
Considering Apollo is in developer ALPHA, that’s actually a compliment! .net has been around alot longer; but the 3 version to implement the WPF technology isn’t that well adopted at all yet.
Ow, and about that download : the installer for .net 3.0 is 2.8Mb, which will then continue to download another 30MB….compare that to Apollo’s current 6Mb footprint. On the bright side, .net’s footprint for Mac actually is 0Mb where Apollo is 8Mb. On the other hand; that 0Mb download comes from the fact that it’s not supported on Mac………
and continues into
“WPF technology and .NET Framework 3.0 brings in the years of experience of Microsoft in programming field. WPF is really a revolution. The combination of WPF/Expression Suite with the programming capabilities of Visual Studio makes it the best Programming Suite ever available.”
I’ll refrain on making any comments on the WPF technology. I haven’t spent enough time looking into WPF to tell you anything about the core technology, or how good it is, or it’s not.
But I will take you up on the “years of experience” :
I’ve always been a Windows user (after having to move away from the then dead AmigaOS). It’s good enough for me; I enjoyed the software, it enabled me to do my job, entertain myself, communicate, and get a fairly easy cleanly installed machine. XP is a stable and usable OS; all I need. Not complaining there. Recently I was lured by the Vista hype and gave it a try….that other product where MS so eagerly wishes to state is “built on top of years of experience”. I was just thinking : what did they actually do the last 5 years ? What really happened ? Couldn’t get halve of my hardware working, got several crashes on otherwise stable machine, and decided to go back to XP. I needed a killer machine to actually run it. Maybe my next-gen os will be X. Please do not use the “years of experience” as a proof of quality, it fails quite badly at this point in time; and as history has proven, years of experience doesn’t necessarily make you the best.
Mr. Ansari concludes :
“Let this year of 2007 come to an end then we will see where this Apollo and Flex stand ”
Well if all MS Certified professionals have this kind of attitude towards competitive products, I’m willing to take you up on that one ! You’ll never noticed what just hit you, if you don’t know it’s coming.
I’ll leave my personal views on WPF technology and such out of this, but with such an invitation to correct ignorance, I couldn’t resist myself. I would never underestimate another technology, without having a proper look at it.
Found this via Actionscript Hero. who elegantly choose to just link, and not reply to anything….that’s what I should’ve done here
Just remember the blogs slogan : “Parvez Ansari Told You….”