No the silly math remark was useless, i was pointing you're just wrong on the orders of magnitude and you replied wrongly (basic troll level answer, i don't understand the comment so i'll assume the person commenting doesn't understand the subject). I perfectly see the economy of scale there, and i still think you're grossly overestimating it, just as i did at the start, i didn't need to learn how to add 1 and 1 from you to figure it out thanks. Since you taught me addition i'll teach you division, you can add 1 virtual dollar 1 000 000 times, it's still going to be a tiny amount of money if each of those virtual dollars is Worth 0.00000000000000000000001 cent. You don't need to add anything but only to figure out the % gain, if you're saving 1 cycle per second, you've saved about 1 / 3 000 000 00 of your cpu time, which is also only a fraction of your machine's power. The savings are meaningless so it's either quite a bit more than that saved, or other reasons to push this (modularity can have other uses than power saving).
I see nothing wrong with a modular .net, i just see something wrong with "more Frameworks", i'd be plenty fine if it was a replacement, i just hate to see issues in the Framework / language untreated due to "lack of time and ressources" and more of it diverted to alternatives. It also doesn't have the upside of the current .net which is tiny by today's standards (a core os Framework at 200MB is hardly a problem, we have GAMES that are 50GB in size!) that is to know that everything is available on every machine. As a dev i like to know there will be 0 prerequisite / installation issue on a modern Windows version if i target a .net version on which it comes preinstalled for example.
Java didn't try and fail, for that matter java managed pretty good before .net came, and i also don't remember it tried to do anything like wpf, just cater to classical LoB apps. HTML CSS and js proved a good alternative because java looked just as bad as they do, they're all primitive UI compared to WPF.
It doesn't HAVE to be a tradeoff, as i said open sourcing WPF and porting it to support OpenGL just removes the tradeoff, you get the real wpf, binary compatible, as is , on all platforms, that would be a massive step up in UI tech and there's no question about the looks that can be achieved as we already know what WPF can do. Add the maturity of WPF on top as a nice bonus feature too.
WPF on non Windows could work just fine, just make an OpenGL backend instead of directx one just like most game engines support multiple renderers. And wpf doesn't "look like Windows", it looks like you gave a designer a canva and he could do what he wanted, which is just what i want in a UI tech, not something that looks like the target Platform, but something i can make look as i wish.