I think you are selling yourself short. I came into WPF
about 4 months ago, and believe me this framework
consists of several paradigm changes (retained graphics,
dependency properties, attached properties, etc, etc. ).
I would argue that Wpf IS Xaml, and that Xaml is not a
pretty coating ontop of Wpf. Look at the current
programming model for Silverlight. To do anything really
sophisticated you must use InitializeFromXaml(). If you
check out Petzold's book you will notice that he
reimplements the examples from the first have in Xaml -
and what is notable? The Xaml is more concise, shorter.
It simply takes more raw C# to create the equivalent
effect than with Xaml. Wpf is built around Xaml, Xaml
wasn't added as a layer on top of Wpf later. Why is Xaml
compiled into the assembly as baml, rather than the
compiler just generating C# and generating IL from that?
It is evident from the design that the declarative model
is CORE with Wpf, not an afterthought.
Rob
Sells and Anderson's book eh?
I think you mean Chris Anderson's book with the
forewords by Chris Sells and Don Box.
Not to be confused with the forthcoming 2nd edition of
Programming WPF, which is by Ian Griffiths (me) and
Chris Sells, with forewords by Chris Anderson and Don
Box.