You know, you hit on something. Maybe my opinion is skewed because of the book I bought. I got a few chapter into and wand walked away dizzy.

Again, I'm not oppoed to it - I'm opposed to the notion that there's just no other way!.



>How do you know that? You haven't learned enough WPF to really say.
>
>It takes a while to really understand WPF. I first saw when it was introduced at PDC 2005. I came back to the office and told everyone that it was the way we should be writing apps. Everyone said the same things you have. Now, four years later, we have our first WPF app in beta and coworkers can see its value. It's going to take some time. Don't just outright reject it because you can't see it now, but as you learn more about it, the light bulb will come on for you.
>
>One more reference. Unfortunately, you'll have to do some legwork. Get to your local bookstore and read the first chapter of "WPF in Action". It has a better technical explanation of some of the problems WPF solves than I could ever give.
>
>>I dunno. I don't get it. I have asked repeatedly ini this thread for examples things found in WPF that are "must haves", and no one has posted any that impress me. Craig posting some things, but I can write or obtain these functions with less cost and effort that seems to come with WPF.

Everything makes sense in someone's mind
public class SystemCrasher :ICrashable
In addition, an integer field is not for irrational people