tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2557671457352222943.post5506483517418617722..comments2009-03-23T23:27:30.350ZNeil Mosafihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15344599241111572695noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2557671457352222943.post-83723555051073988532009-03-23T23:27:00.000Z2009-03-23T23:27:00.000ZGood points Odi and I kind of agree with you, as does <A HREF="http://www.drwpf.com/blog/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/49/Default.aspx" REL="nofollow">Dr WPF</A> - MS wouldn't be building the next version of Visual Studio in it if they didn't believe in it!<BR/><BR/>However (even with WPF) I still generally develop thin client applications, consuming web services to perform the major grunt work. Those web services would be running the on full .NET framework and would benefit from all the rich features of it. The client probably wouldn't need most of them, so Silverlight or WPF could both make good choices for the UI.<BR/><BR/>The lines are definitely becoming blurred!Neil Mosafihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15344599241111572695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2557671457352222943.post-88102626919072382892009-03-23T20:05:00.000Z2009-03-23T20:05:00.000ZEven if there's nothing left in WPF that's not in Silverlight 3+, I don't think that means WPF is in trouble.<BR/><BR/>Here's why:<BR/><BR/>"WPF vs. Silverlight: it's the wrong debate" -- http://snurl.com/wpfdebateOdihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10236877816454964474noreply@blogger.com