Ammy, a better syntax than XAML with more

EDIT: Houra, “Absolutely free for everyone!“. A very good new! And now with support of Xamarin, WPF and UWP.

In a first approach, Ammy could be just a better json based syntax for xaml. And there is more:

  • global and local variables
$fontColor = "#363636"

 can be reused:

TextBlock {
  Foreground: $fontColor
  • Aliases can be seen as a function returning a node:
alias Header(text) {
  TextBlock {
    FontSize: 18
    Text: $text

can be easily used :

StackPanel {
  @Header("First chapter") {
  • and mixins can be seen as function providing a set of properties:
mixin SeeThrough(opacity=0.5) for UIElement {
  Opacity: $opacity
Button {

or sub node(s):

mixin DefaultItem() for ComboBox {
  ComboBoxItem {
    "Select quantity"
ComboBox {


mixin TwoRows(height1, height2) for Grid {
  RowDefinitions: [
    RowDefinition { Height: $height1 }
    RowDefinition { Height: $height2 }
Grid {
  #TwoRows(25, "*")

and are composable.

UWP is said to be coming soon but what about Xamarin forms?

This is all well and good except a big drawback: it’s not free, should be paid monthly and is extremely expensive ($299 per month for commercial project made by more than a single developer). So it’s unusable. I’m not going to invest my time to learn a new graphical language if I’m sure to be able to use it anywhere! What a pity!

Even without a VS designer, such a refresh could be extremely useful but this should be a community effort and not a commercial one to be successful.


4 thoughts on “Ammy, a better syntax than XAML with more

    • I enjoy the addition of Xamarin forms. Handle each major platform makes Ammy a possible choice.

      I think Ammy is long-awaited improvement over raw xaml syntax for at least two reasons:
      * your syntax is less verbose and and more modern (I like jsx),
      * your less/sass extension is much more simple to use than always create a converter, a markup or a static instance.

      Price change is welcome but my post was about large adoption.

      A large compagny with many developpers could be worried to lock its developpements on a closed technology owned by an ounknown team. A small team could be unable to pay a recurent price even a low one. Enthusiastic developper cannot use Ammy to make open source components (open source must be usable for either non-profit or commercial product without any string attached). I think your licensing scheme could block the adoption of Ammy.

      • Thank you for an elaborate answer!

        What would you suggest as a business model then? Keep in mind, that developing Ammy is a full-time job (and it has been for a year prior to release). I’ve developed a few big open source projects in my time and all of them were abandoned because it was impossible to support them while working a day job, while having family responsibilities when I’m at home. So, even before starting Ammy I decided that it should be my full-time work.

  1. This was the first thing I found when I googled “better syntax for xaml”. It appears that the big drawback is no longer a thing – Ammy is now freeware. Might be nice to tweak the post to make this clear at the top.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s