For me and many other .NET developers I know, speaking about XAML means the whole stack, e.g. XAML, .NET APIs, Blend integration and third party components.
I just tend to abbreviate to XAML when speaking about it.
There changes on the APIs between WPF, WinRT and Silverlight if you will, and not all features are exposed across all stacks.
Yet, any developer knowing XAML, the usual programming idioms and the respective .NET APIs can easily transition among all of them.
This has been mentioned at multiple PDC and BUILD conferences in the last years, but I guess many at HN and Reddit don't follow them.
I just see XAML itself as totally optional, and it is weird to hear it used to represent the entire architecture. One of the reasons I haven't even tried WinRT yet is because it seems much more XAML heavy than classic WPF (it is also missing font metric APIs my programs depend on...). I'm also a bit of a code traditionalist, and find transitioning between the two (markup and code behind) a bit jarring.
Plenty of Microsoft haters on HN, this post has already been flagged or flamed off the front page. Oh well.
I just tend to abbreviate to XAML when speaking about it.
There changes on the APIs between WPF, WinRT and Silverlight if you will, and not all features are exposed across all stacks.
Yet, any developer knowing XAML, the usual programming idioms and the respective .NET APIs can easily transition among all of them.
This has been mentioned at multiple PDC and BUILD conferences in the last years, but I guess many at HN and Reddit don't follow them.