My point was, WPF is not dead. Silverlight, which was a good technology, is a different story. With video and audio in HTML5 and limited browser support, it didn't make sense to continue.





>I saw the FB post. Playing devil's advocate - so what? :)
>
>If I had to list my biggest concerns regarding .NET, one would be the need for a commitment to a more long-term (and clear) roadmap regarding presentation. This is where I've felt all along that MS pretty much got WCF "right" but WPF is a different story. This is certainly not an easy task, but hopefully one they are addressing.
>
>I think the developers who feel a bit jaded by what has happened with Silverlight and their perceptions of what's going on with WPF are probably more interested in a long-term direction than shiny new toys.
>
> When you say, "WPF should not be ignored", my initial reaction is to look at who has been perceived as de-emphasizing it the most. <s>
>
>That's part of why I told Tore to just stick to the (more or less) lowest common denominators like WinForms (and also look at browser support). Until there's a more long-term roadmap, it really only makes sense to look at other technologies if he's explicitly going to need them. So in one sense, I don't think we completely disagree on this - but I have to say that the "I saw cool stuff coming down the pike but can't talk about it due to NDA" should not impress anyone.