First, taking the opportunity this discussion presents, I'd like to state for the record, AGAIN, that I have long appreciated the Win32 API and still do -- not because it's great in and out of itself necessarily, it certainly has more warts than your average toad native to the Amazon, but because it de-facto worked for a long while through simple iteration (which grew warts too though) _and_ while it didn't demand Microsoft had everything for _everyone_, it kept Win32 development stable "at the bottom", as the "assembly" layer of Windows development, which everything else was free to build on, _in peace_. Ironically -- looking at the volume of APIs and SDKs Microsoft is churning out today, by comparison, through sheer mass and velocity -- they've proven utterly unable to be sole guardians of their own operating system. There's a plethora of articles shared on Hacker News on this inadequacy on their part to converge on some subset of software that a Windows developer can use to just start with a window or two of their own, on the screen. Win32 _gave you exactly that_. And even `CreateWindow2` export would have worked beyond what `CreateWindow` or `CreateWindowEx` couldn't provide, because you could count on someone who loved it more to just abstract it with a _thin_ layer like WxWidgets etc. Things _worked_. Now there's internal strife between the .NET and "C++ or bust" teams at Microsoft, and the downstream developers are just everything between confused and irritated, this is entirely self-inflicted, Microsoft. It's also a sign of bloat -- if the company could split these groups into subsidiaries, they could compete on actual value delivered, but under the Microsoft umbrella, the result is entirely different.

Second -- and this is a different point entirely -- not two weeks ago there was at least _two_ articles shared here which I read with a mix of mild amusement and sober agreement, about the _opposite_ of what the author of the article linked above, advocates for -- _idiomatic_ design (usually one that's internally consistent):

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47738827 ("Bring back Idiomatic Design")

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47547009 ("Make macOS consistently bad unironically")

What I am getting at is that this is clearly different people vocally preferring different -- _opposite_ -- UX experiences. From my brief stint with graphic design, I know there's no silver bullet there either -- consistency is on some level in a locked-horns conflict with creativity (which in part suggests _defiance_), but it's just funny that we now have examples of both, with the above, to which I should add:

> This is why we can't have nice things!

Also, while we "peasants" argue about which way good design should lean -- someone likes their WinAmp-like alpha-blended non-uniform windows and someone else maintains anything that's not defined by the OS is sheer heresy -- the market for one or the other is kept well fueled and another round on the carousel we all go (money happily changing hands).

For my part I wish we'd settle, as much as settling can be done. The APIs should support both, but the user should get to decide, not the developer. Which is incidentally what CSS was _ideally_ kind of was supposed to give us, but we're not really there with that, and I am digressing.