HTML is not a programming language.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
I hate HTML
- Thread starter roguemat
- Start date
HTML is not a programming language.
Mystic Twilight
Expert Member
I don't use Silverlight at all, but aren't silverlight made content bigger in file size? That would translate to longer page load times, which in my opinion is plain bad even if you have a fast connection. Furthermore, I stand to be corrected, you need to download libraries in order to view Silverlight content, the same as needing to download Adobe flash in order to see flash content. Windows OS would probably have the required files baked into the install disc, but other other OS?
you are correct, but this is not what we are talking about. We are merely talking about the languages used to create the content.
Noone is saying that its a good idea to make a site in Silverlight - that's not what its made for. SL is for LOB apps.
Mystic Twilight
Expert Member
Maybe I missed the thread drifting in-between the pages, however with regards to the opening post:
unless you are going to make a website with tables in html, making a modern site with the modern technologies will require at bare minimum html and css. Therefore in order to use Silverlight as a content layout scheme in replacement to html (put what content) and css (put content where and how) for website creation (unless you're arguing as to why html and css doesn't have a WYSIWYG that you can easily click and drop content, which dreamweaver and a whole stack of free html editors covers and therefore makes this a rather moot point of contention.), one would need to take into account everything that comes with the technology in question. An example being creating websites based purely on flash would immediately remove all iOS users as the mobile Safari browser doesn't support flash (probably Silverlight too, haven't tried this). Therefore as I said earlier, using Silverlight as method of creating websites will be rather cumbersome for the user as browsers don't have 100% native support for Silverlight. I reference the following quote as to why I say this about Silverlight.
It would be nice for developers to be able to develop with tools and languages that have a flatter learning curve and require less "hand coding", but the current form of Silverlight and its presence on the major browsers and OS will just irritate users.
The only other issue that I am able to see is with reference to the underlined bolded section in the quote. If you're asking as to why there is no point and click in replacement for typing out code, there are plenty of html and css WYSIWYG editors as I mentioned earlier.
Unless I have completely misunderstood the topic of discussion that is hand, then do excuse me. System.exit();
Last edited:
No, I never made any reference to tools either. Once again, only the actual language. It doesn't make a difference whether you are hand coding it or dragging and dropping - the code is going to be the same (well, maybe more/less verbose).
If you did want to put the discussion in a proper context I guess this question would sum it up:
"In a world where browsers has decided to support web pages in two formats (XAML and HTML), why would you choose HTML(and CSS) over XAML when in every way that I know, XAML is easier, makes more sense and just as powerful. This would NOT mean the browsers running Silverlight, merely allowing web page parsing in multiple languages."
And although that would never happen in a real world, if you look at Windows 8 development, you can make apps in XAML/C# and HTML/CSS/JS.
So I guess the question should have been:
"If you are a desktop developer and looking at W8, why would you choose HTML/CSS/JS over XAML/C#? "
If you did want to put the discussion in a proper context I guess this question would sum it up:
"In a world where browsers has decided to support web pages in two formats (XAML and HTML), why would you choose HTML(and CSS) over XAML when in every way that I know, XAML is easier, makes more sense and just as powerful. This would NOT mean the browsers running Silverlight, merely allowing web page parsing in multiple languages."
And although that would never happen in a real world, if you look at Windows 8 development, you can make apps in XAML/C# and HTML/CSS/JS.
So I guess the question should have been:
"If you are a desktop developer and looking at W8, why would you choose HTML/CSS/JS over XAML/C#? "
Rocket-Boy
Honorary Master
It does but I didnt bat any languages, I just commented on you crying about a language you dont know very well.
SuperNev
Well-Known Member
The first programming I ever learnt was using HTML, back when JavaScript was used for making things flicker and making millions of ad pop-ups. I was 15-16 back then (22 now).
With some experience now, I would contend that HTML is better than XAML, maybe not for someone who knows the one better than the other. If Tony Stark had to build a website from just code when he was stuck in that cave, he wouldn't have built one with XAML as he would have needed .NET, whereas HTML would have done the job.
Yes maybe it's easier for you to make things vertical and what-not, but also look at it from an accessibility point. HTML alone is messy (but still very capable) unless you mix it up with CSS, and now with CSS3 and the HTML5 specs, it's even more useful.
From what I know, XAML was meant to be used with the .NET family, whereas HTML is more versatile, only needing a browser (even good ol' IE 5.5 - 8). Furthermore I think the OP is comparing apples with bananas because HTML and XML (not XAML) are meant to be data delivery specs [XAML being layout only I presume], hence we still need CSS for layouts and making pretty Barbie websites.
XML is very powerful, Microsoft put in an A to make it XAML
in order to use it for initialising structure values ... In order for it to do that, Microsoft invested time and money in preseting values such as vertical alignments and the sort.
So I find it unfair that one compares XAML with HTML (which you have to 'preset' on the fly using CSS). It's like comparing a kid on a crutch with a kid on a wheelchair, one will be faster than the other because they are not starting from the same position.
So with that said, I think OP should have complained about CSS as he/she is not familiar with it. Some of us find it easy and efficient to use HTML
With some experience now, I would contend that HTML is better than XAML, maybe not for someone who knows the one better than the other. If Tony Stark had to build a website from just code when he was stuck in that cave, he wouldn't have built one with XAML as he would have needed .NET, whereas HTML would have done the job.
Yes maybe it's easier for you to make things vertical and what-not, but also look at it from an accessibility point. HTML alone is messy (but still very capable) unless you mix it up with CSS, and now with CSS3 and the HTML5 specs, it's even more useful.
From what I know, XAML was meant to be used with the .NET family, whereas HTML is more versatile, only needing a browser (even good ol' IE 5.5 - 8). Furthermore I think the OP is comparing apples with bananas because HTML and XML (not XAML) are meant to be data delivery specs [XAML being layout only I presume], hence we still need CSS for layouts and making pretty Barbie websites.
XML is very powerful, Microsoft put in an A to make it XAML
in order to use it for initialising structure values ... In order for it to do that, Microsoft invested time and money in preseting values such as vertical alignments and the sort. So I find it unfair that one compares XAML with HTML (which you have to 'preset' on the fly using CSS). It's like comparing a kid on a crutch with a kid on a wheelchair, one will be faster than the other because they are not starting from the same position.
So with that said, I think OP should have complained about CSS as he/she is not familiar with it. Some of us find it easy and efficient to use HTML
MagicDude4Eva
Banned
I would just use Twitter Bootstrap - gives you the layout CSS and some convenient widgets - http://bootstrap.simplydev.com/docs/index.html
Waansin
Well-Known Member
As usual, I am late to the thread, but anyway. IMHO I think MS offer HTML/CSS/JS development as a way to get more apps built for their platform. There are definitely more skills out there to create good looking websites and, by extension, html metro apps. I'm thinking of all the media agencies that build websites and not dev shops. And html metro apps will be fine as long as there is decent system integration and they run fast.
For me, my choice between XAML+C# or HTML/CSS/JS will depend on the project. I'm always going to lean towards the solution that offers the best performance, but sometimes there are good reasons to use something else.
diabolus
Executive Member
Just for in case people didn't see the news, sometimes Microsoft is a little too subtle.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft...-output-support-to-its-lightswitch-tool/12900
So yea, Lightswitch up to now was pure Silverlight , so Microsoft is getting there
.CrazYmonkeY159
Expert Member
Professional Troll.
Anyways, I see where OP is coming from, I actually became well acquainted with XAML way before HTML. But I have to say, Visual Studio + Blend makes it all the more easier, those two IDEs are brilliant for rapid development. he's assessment is largely fair in my expirience. But as a purist I tend to go with MVC, like or any paradigms which separate content from presentation and from function.