it is my impression that the idea is to have the presentation stuff in XAML and there are design tools to make that very graphic and interactive and the XAML only has to be fiddled for tweaking, much as Dreamweaver takes care of HTML. and then the "code behind" handler stuff is C# as usual. Sounds pretty logical actually, since graphics can be handled without the contraints of "programming" and programming can be done without the constraints of interface. I'm not too deep into it yet, but I think I can see the reasoning behind it.
>Large web sites typically have designers and developers. Why shouldn't complex desktop apps?
>
>>That's a huge issue to me. What MS is advocating here, at least the author of my book asserts, is that development is now divided into coders and designers, and that one doesn't even need to know about the other. I just see WPF as one huge PITA. Now maybe as I get further along I might see it different.
Charles Hankey
Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened.
- Thomas Hardy
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
- Ben Franklin
Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
