|
If the Windows 10 mobile share ever rises above a miniscule percentage, then, yes. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
No. I don't see the point. Develop for Android, for iOS, for Windows Desktop, for MacOS desktop, for Linux (choose your desktop), but UWP seems to be solving a problem that no one really has at present (other than Microsoft).
Sure, if Windows Mobile (which is really what UWP is) picks up market share then it would make sense to develop for it but, unless and until that very unlikely time, there doesn't seem to be much need for UWP as a development target.
UWP is funky cool but despite this it's still not a worthy or functional replacement for Windows Desktop app development as far as I can see and so with Windows Mobile being a bit player it just seems to me that UWP has no useful place.
P.S. Oh, and if UWP does ever take off such that it becomes the main way to develop for the Windows ecosystem, then watch out for it being cancelled or left to wither and die...
|
|
|
|
|
To throw my 2 cents in the pot: If wanted to make a windows cross device application, I would also consider doing a Web Application (HTML+JS). Then is runs on all your Windows devices (did last gen Zunes have web browsers?) PLUS other platforms.
Where UWP is aimed at cross device within Microsoft's world (cross-device). Web Applications can be cross-platform, be it some Apple device, Linux or Android, or the next big OS to come out.
Ofcouse depth of application always something to consider. For some, native application development or depth might be quicker better, fast, easier, then a Web application.
If you need some fact based reason - weight up the pros/cons of any list of solutions, and pick the one with the best weighting for you project and team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it kept crashing my MSVS so it is a no-go for me, at this time.
I thought it might be useful to write desktop applications that could be distributed through the windows store. Not sure if I got the wrong end of the stick. Maybe in a couple of iterations I'll re-visit, but for right now I'm waiting to see what happens. Really don't want to learn a whole other platform that becomes redundant in a couple of years time.
|
|
|
|
|
UWP is only the first step in the overall direction of full cross-platform development. As with WPF, Windows Universal (Metro) apps, Silverlight, and now UWP, XAML is the cornerstone for developing apps within the Windows universe. Note that Windows 10 is likely the last version of Windows that will exist. The cloud is coming. Still, there will be some form of OS on all of the devices that will exist. As UWP grows, it will be universal with Android and even iOS. While you can do XAML-based apps using Xamarin's tools, UWP will make it more cross-platform compatible so that you can write one code-base that will run on multiple devices from PCs, Macs, iPad, Droid tablets and phones, iPhones, Xbox, HoloLens, etc. Look beyond today as this is really the future.
Christopher Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."
|
|
|
|
|
I hope they do that, but I don't think anyone has stated that yet. AND, I think Apple has a clause somewhere that you can't developer alternate apis. So I'm not even sure you can just create a UWP and have it run on apple devices.
|
|
|
|
|
Somasegar's Blog: "Opening up Visual Studio and .NET to Every Developer, Any Application..."[^]
Christopher Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft can have that goal to support Apple, but as I said, there was something in their licensing that doesn't allow alternative apis. Like using a .Net library to make it cross platform. Microsoft once showed Silverlight running on an iPhone, as I recall, and Apple squashed that quickly. I remember Microsoft gave some sort of live demo of it and, maybe before the day was out, that portion of the saved video was blacked out because of Apple complaining.
So unless there is a statement from Apple that they will support .Net, I think the likelihood is very small of that happening.
But I would be overjoyed if I were wrong. I really like .Net and would love to be able to code without having to use Apple libraries.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about Apple having a clause blocking other apis, but I do remember seeing something about blocking interpreted code which includes .Net and Java. Apple requires the software on iOS devices to use natively compiled code.
For cross-platform there are two common ways around this that I know of. Make an app that just has a browser control and make the app a rich website, which ironically is much slower than compiled code. The other involves making an app using the Xamarin toolset. I remember reading Xamarin has to do some special stuff to make sure generics work when C# is compiled to an iOS app because in .Net generics are handled at run-time.
|
|
|
|
|
MY way around it is to write RemObject's code in Pascal, or C#, or Silver (Swift) and make my project be .net, or java, or Cocoa (iOs, etc.)
You create the app and use native libraries.
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm ... WPF, try running xbap in the edge browser. WPF has already become the WinForms environment it was meant to replace 
WUA ... universal only under Win8 - no Win7, no Win10 - basically a 1 hit wonder and also now burried.
Silverlight ... many jumped into a great ideal, web/desktop/SharePoint apps ... and now dead.
Spent time with all 3, lost credibility based off pushing these bleeding edge "futures" that got dropped after so many promises. Time to look elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, all Windows 8/8.1 apps should run within the Windows 10.
Silverlight is dead; I only mentioned it in that XAML is the basis for all of these platforms.
It's XAML that is the future.
Remember that JavaScript wasn't exactly a fan-favorite for its first ten years...
Christopher Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."
|
|
|
|
|
You quote xaml as if you can take SL, run it under WPF, and then again under UWP - if only it was that easy. I was an early adopter/fan - but I will NOT be recommending a third rewrite.
And to underline that decision once moved to UWP it will lock us in to a much smaller Win10 market. Dislike JavaScript but the one app will surface on all desktops from Win7 through 10 (and beyond Windows) ... not to mention escaping the current rewrite trap that MS has us falling into.
And yes, Win8 apps "will run" provided small UI fails of charms and swipe bars (pushed in the name of metro styling) are no longer important. There are important differences between running and being part of the platform
|
|
|
|
|
UWP is the same old approach to write "universal app" one time (like Java). But unlike Java, UWP tries to make the same UI for everything - it's apriori mistake, since interaction with smartphone/tablet/desktop/projector is very different. 10 years past, but we still have no any affordable "touch table"!
I prefer to wait until corpse of Nadella move by the river and some professionals come and implement proper _strictly_mobile_ platform parallel to strictly desktop.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what kinds of apps you work on, but if you're making something to run on Windows then going forward a UWP is generally a good idea. As long as you're not stopped by some technological reason then I really have to ask why not? Microsoft has some pretty good development tools in Visual Studio for creating those apps and with them you can still make the app run on Desktop/Laptop/Tablet/Phone/Etc with support for handling the different screen sizes.
I like telling people to at least look into it from a cross-platform perspective. If you're using the same backing logic but different UI code, or similar UI code, then the next logical step is to look into using the Xamarin tools. Yes, those tools looks expensive, but now you're saving money by not hiring more people to work on separate apps. It's all one team working on one app with one set of tools.
I feel like I should say that I do work for Microsoft, but these are my own thoughts and my work in the customer support area does not does not include anything related to this. I just play with this for fun on my own time.
|
|
|
|
|
Stone age USB stick[^]
I believe it holds up to 640KB!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
What kind of unit is KB?
Kilo Bricks?
|
|
|
|
|
I've been told that's a Solid-State Drive stick with rock solid performance!
You won't find a more robust piece of hardware 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's going to fall over, no... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I know some of the early compuers were big but wow that must have been a big usb port.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone sent you that? By mail?
Must have been a lot of stamps.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It was probably a bugger to wrap a well!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Wonder the USB port size.
Cheers
KR
|
|
|
|
|
That thing needs a USB BC port.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
