XAML Alternatives

Question

I love WPF, but I hate XAML.

XAML is too verbose, has syntax issues when Microsoft tried to extend it (see StringFormat on Bindings), and is difficult to navigate.

Are there any alternatives to XAML?

(These are just my opinions. Feel free to disagree.)

Answer 1

There are alternatives:

XUL, Flash, Delphi resource syntax, C# Form.Designer.cs syntax, VB6 form syntax

Surely there are no compelling alternatives though.

It's like human bodies -- utter rubbish with all its juices and smells but that's by far the best life form known. XAML is clearly really really bad, but there's nothing half as good around.

Answer 2

One alternative is to not do the UI at all and have a designer do it in Blend instead.

HTH, Kent

Answer 3

Wikipedia gives a list of alternatives.

Answer 4

This might be something to watch. There is nothing to download from the website yet though.

D'oh: The Super Productive Windows GUI Language

http://doh.xn--majkrsft-e0ab.se/

Answer 5

XAML does seem to be the elephant in the room. While I'm a huge fan of WPF the verbosity of XAML can be a little hard on the eyes. Whilst Blend and VS2010 go long way to reducing the need for coding XAML from scratch, I still find hand editing a necessity in nearly everything I do.

I find power boots easy on the eyes and the CSS like syntax of JavaFX to be quite appealing. These seem to be the insparation for D'oh.

However verbose XAML is, at least there is tooling support to get us 90% of the way, any other alternative would take us back to hand coding all the UI. Not an attractive proposition for this coder.

Answer 6

Hi Cameron, now I know why your name badge looked familiar at the last Innovation Day.

It would be a lot of work but you could make a small start - there's no reason why you have to use XAML, just need something creating the partial classes.

So, you could code up a DSL replacing XAML with something that was legal C# or go the whole hog and write a VS tool which generated C# the same way the XAML processor does. It depends on how much you want available to the code-behind file at compile-time.

Hmmm, with IronRuby, maybe a DSL in IronRuby

(DSL = Domain Specific Language for anyone reading who is acronymically challenged.)