@Greg, the last version of LightSwitch you could choose either HTML5 or SilverLight on the client. But you're right... it's no longer an option.
On 25 November 2016 at 11:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) <g...@greglow.com> wrote: > Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based. > > > > Regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Dr Greg Low > > > > 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 > fax > > SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz > *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM > > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express > > > > Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche > that Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain > it's now dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe > it's an area that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well. > > > > On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) <g...@greglow.com> wrote: > > But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in > productivity? > > Regards, > > Greg > > Dr Greg Low > 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 > fax > SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> on > behalf of Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > > > *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express > > > > "It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is > staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so > hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the > OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class > citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but > until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be > additive biproduct / bonus rounds outside that. > > > > Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not > as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well > behind us now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > Regards, > Scott Barnes > http://www.riagenic.com > > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) <g...@greglow.com> > wrote: > > So it then comes back to tooling again. > > > > Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it > deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix > the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model. > > > > Regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Dr Greg Low > > > > 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 > fax > > SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express > > > > I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web > world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as > “the web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these > clients – it’s simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients” > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com <ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] *On Behalf Of *Nathan > Schultz > *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express > > > > As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key > drivers were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients > are simply not transportable. > > So the simple answer is, you don't. > > > > On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote: > > > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz > *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express > > > > @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of > Martin Fowler's. > > Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt > ;-) > > > > I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world > (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a > quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different > OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities). > > > > I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you > were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s > breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d > need to ship etc? > > > > > > >
