Saw it coming

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Jay --

> To bad. I had read earlier that the plan was to talk up rich clients more
> and web services less. Web services are nice to work with, just don't have
> much need as of yet.

Yeah, when business school's study this debacle in their history classes years from
now, and they will, this fundamental misreading of what folks want is going to be
highlighted over and over. They never did understand the internet, and have only
been interested in changing it to be more proprietary.

Heh, a funny example that was brought to my attention just this morning is that
Spanish language DOTNET portal they were busily propping up (see YAG's most recent
"status report" in the spam group). Apparently, the operator of that site was *so*
enthused that he spammed all the newsgroups on msnews, some 3000+ messages(!),
spewing on and on about the glories of this new site. I guess the ISP took 'em down
for violation of their terms agreement, in response. Irony at its best, huh? <g>

Later... Karl
--
[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]

[Jacob Grass]

Hey Karl-

Karl E. Peterson wrote:
> Apparently, the operator of that site was *so* enthused that
> he spammed all the newsgroups on msnews, some 3000+ messages(!),
> spewing on and on about the glories of this new site. I guess the
> ISP took 'em down for violation of their terms agreement, in
> response. Irony at its best, huh? <g>

Same site name, different URLs. . . The .com one is gone, the .net one is
still there. The spamming took place in December of last year and was for
the .com one.

--
Jacob Grass
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.

[Rob Teixeira]

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>They never did understand the internet, and have only
>been interested in changing it to be more proprietary.
>

How is webservices changing it to be "more proprietary"?
Webservices is an open standard whose fundamental basis is to allow disperate
systems (including non-Windows/non-MS) to communicate.

-Rob

[Jason]

"Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
>
>"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
>>
>>They never did understand the internet, and have only
>>been interested in changing it to be more proprietary.
>>
>
>How is webservices changing it to be "more proprietary"?
>Webservices is an open standard whose fundamental basis is to allow disperate
>systems (including non-Windows/non-MS) to communicate.
>
>-Rob

Yeah, gotta go with Rob on this one. The entire interface for communicating
with a web service is well documented and standardized. It is not a Microsoft
standard, although Microsoft played a big part in creating the standard.
IBM was also a big player, and is working with Microsoft on a set of standards
for secure web services, which is needed badly if they are to catch on.


I have it on good authority that Sun considers SOAP to be a Microsoft technology
and refuses to use it internally, but there is a good SOAP implementation
from Apache, and several commercial Web Services packages coming on line
for Java. There is nothing preventing you from doing a web service in Perl,
C/C++, or any language that has libraries to support XML and SOAP.

One note on Sun: Java has not been submitted to a standards committee.
The standard is still controlled and owned by Sun, and they can refuse anyone
the rights to mess with it (and took Microsoft to court to prevent them from
competing on an equal playing field in the Java space).

Java is proprietary to Sun. Yes, they let other people use it, as long as
they don't compete with Sun too well. Sun and Microsoft are both in business
to make money, which is how it should be.

There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me
... and a couple of billionaires calling the shots. Face it - everybody
wants to control the internet, Sun, Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle included.
Everybody wants to create the next great proprietary technology that can
generate them a revenue stream, because without revenue, companies tend to
go broke.

[David Bayley]

Jay Glynn wrote:

> To bad. I had read earlier that the plan was to talk up rich clients
> more and web services less. Web services are nice to work with, just
> don't have much need as of yet.

How about incorporating Google searches into your rich clients...

http://www.google.com/apis/

Go go google.

--
David.

[Jay Glynn]

DL'd the bits yesterday....

"David Bayley" <dbayley@spamless.aebacus.com> wrote in message
news:3cb769a7@10.1.10.29...
> Jay Glynn wrote:
>
> > To bad. I had read earlier that the plan was to talk up rich clients
> > more and web services less. Web services are nice to work with, just
> > don't have much need as of yet.
>
> How about incorporating Google searches into your rich clients...
>
> http://www.google.com/apis/
>
> Go go google.
>
> --
> David.
>
>
>

[Kunle Odutola]

"MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3cb702d8$1@10.1.10.29...

> What cost? You should check out SWT. For a demo get Eclipse. It runs
faster
> and better than .Net on my laptop.

SWT sounds like a good compromise to the AWT/Swing extremes in principle.
How do you develop custom SWT components?.

Do you have to write a JNI module for each platform you wish to support?
Are you restricted to composing your components using exisiting controls if
you want to use 100% Java?

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
message news:3cb89499@10.1.10.29...

> SWT sounds like a good compromise to the AWT/Swing extremes in principle.
> How do you develop custom SWT components?.
>
> Do you have to write a JNI module for each platform you wish to support?
> Are you restricted to composing your components using exisiting controls
if
> you want to use 100% Java?

Never mind. I already found out.Was feeling a little lazy earlier on. Sounds
like Java makes it more hard work that necessary but, it's nice to see that
someone else has done a lot of the groundwork.

Kunle

[Isle of the Dead]

"MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3cb6dc08$1@10.1.10.29...
> >
> >comeback so to speak. Not everything fits in a browser, and it is in this
> >arena that .NET beats the pants off of Java and J2EE.
>
> Does it? This only proves you know nothing about Java. Java was not
created
> to run in the browser (Can you only use .Net for Web Services?). I've
been
> doing this in Java before .Net came out. We switched our Applet to an
Application
> in like 5 minutes and we were using a home grown version of web services.
> Serialized Java objects can be sent over HTTP and have been since at
least
> 1998. Switching to Web Services (serialized XML vs serialized Objects) in
> Java is easier than making my wife mad at me.


I posted this before, but what the **** -
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc...nce/index.html
Serialized XML has been available in Java since 1999.

And RosettaNet is basically an implementation of WebServices
using proprietary formats. It's been in process since 1998
http://xml.coverpages.org/rosettaNet.html

[Tom Bennet]

Mark,

I'm glad to see there are some people who post here that get it! To see
a killer Java app, check out jEdit from www.jedit.org. It's quite possibly
the best programmers editor that i've used and also a good example of what
can be done using Swing with Java. It's not at all slow and provides many
advanced GUI features. The other nice thing is that all of the source is
there for your enjoyment!

I am amazed at the amount of Java open source that is out there.

Java is making a big comeback on the GUI side thanks to support from the
industry.

Tom

"MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>Does it? This only proves you know nothing about Java. Java was not created
>to run in the browser (Can you only use .Net for Web Services?). I've
been
>doing this in Java before .Net came out. We switched our Applet to an Application
>in like 5 minutes and we were using a home grown version of web services.
> Serialized Java objects can be sent over HTTP and have been since at least
>1998. Switching to Web Services (serialized XML vs serialized Objects)
in
>Java is easier than making my wife mad at me.
>
>Have you seen Java Web Start? And as far as I can tell doing this with
Assembies
>and Namespaces will be a pain.
>
>So you may like .Net better but it doesn't beat the pants off Java. Try
>doing Jini in .Net.
>
>Mark

[Kunle Odutola]

"Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fdfs.com> wrote in message
news:3cb9e311$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Mark,
>
> I'm glad to see there are some people who post here that get it! To see
> a killer Java app, check out jEdit from www.jedit.org.

It is noticeably slower than comparable .NET alternatives e.g. SharpDevelop.
I agree it is a very good low-fi IDE. Better at this stage than SharpDevelop
certainly.

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3cbab2a5$1@10.1.10.29...
> Glad I looked at this post too.

;-)

> SWT, from what I can tell, will currently run on Linux, Windows and Unix.

Info I read on www.eclipse.org only mentioned Windows and Linux. Perhaps it
was out of date.

> The Eclipse (and all variants) were developed using SWT. It runs faster
> on my laptop than VS.Net. Rational's XDE (standalone version) was written
> as an Eclipse plug-in and uses SWT.

VS.NET is a much-more fully featured, "heavy weight" product Mark. I would
expect it to be slower. It is mostly written in C/C++ and any speed
difference is unrelated to UI issues. Eclipse is faster because it
[currently] does much less?

Kunle

[MarkN]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote
in
>message news:3cb89499@10.1.10.29...
>
>> SWT sounds like a good compromise to the AWT/Swing extremes in principle.
>> How do you develop custom SWT components?.
>>
>> Do you have to write a JNI module for each platform you wish to support?
>> Are you restricted to composing your components using exisiting controls
>if
>> you want to use 100% Java?
>
>Never mind. I already found out.Was feeling a little lazy earlier on. Sounds
>like Java makes it more hard work that necessary but, it's nice to see that
>someone else has done a lot of the groundwork.
>

Glad I looked at this post too.

SWT, from what I can tell, will currently run on Linux, Windows and Unix.
Not sure about Mac, but from what I read Java/Swing apps run just as fast
on Mac OSX as native Windows - I don't have a Mac so I can verify. Anyway,
for everything that exists on the platform in the way of widgets, SWT will
use them. If not, it will emulate them.

If one has to decide between SWT and Swing - well if one is doing good OO
and MVCish programming switching between the two shouldn't be difficult.
One should be able to a HTML front end pretty simply for that matter.

The Eclipse (and all variants) were developed using SWT. It runs faster
on my laptop than VS.Net. Rational's XDE (standalone version) was written
as an Eclipse plug-in and uses SWT.

Check out www.javadude.com for some custom layout managers.

Mark

[MarKN]

Ok, I'm using WSAD too and it is just as fast. And WSAD does as much if not
more than VS.Net.

No, VS.Net isn't doing anything more. Eclipse/WSAD is written in Java so
it should be slower no matter what.

BTW, the base Eclipse product does things VS.Net doesn't. And it is free!

Don't get me wrong, everyone. VS.Net is a good product. I just don't think
it is that much, if any, better than WSAD.

Mark


"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3cbab2a5$1@10.1.10.29...
>> Glad I looked at this post too.
>
>;-)
>
>> SWT, from what I can tell, will currently run on Linux, Windows and Unix.
>
>Info I read on www.eclipse.org only mentioned Windows and Linux. Perhaps
it
>was out of date.
>
>> The Eclipse (and all variants) were developed using SWT. It runs faster
>> on my laptop than VS.Net. Rational's XDE (standalone version) was written
>> as an Eclipse plug-in and uses SWT.
>
>VS.NET is a much-more fully featured, "heavy weight" product Mark. I would
>expect it to be slower. It is mostly written in C/C++ and any speed
>difference is unrelated to UI issues. Eclipse is faster because it
>[currently] does much less?
>
>Kunle
>
>

[Kunle Odutola]

"MarKN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3cbae489$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Ok, I'm using WSAD too and it is just as fast. And WSAD does as much if
not
> more than VS.Net.

So you can [fully] develop and debug native and managed C/C++, VB, JScript
and C# [or Java] apps in WSAD?
It has built-in graphical XML and web apps UI editors?
Stored procedure debugging?
A robust, flexible and scriptable extendibility model?
An integrated help system like VS.NET (I actually like the "dynamic help"
window/feature)?
Data Explorer/Data Connections-type functionality?
.......
.......


Mark, please compare apples to apples.

> No, VS.Net isn't doing anything more. Eclipse/WSAD is written in Java so
> it should be slower no matter what.

What an application is doing [or not doing] has a major impact on it's
performance Mark. If WSAD is re-written in C/C++, would you expect it's
performance to be better or worse?. Why?

Thought so, like I said, VS.NET != WSAD, whatever else you may claim. ;-)
[You _did_ say better right?. If not, re-read the rationale for developing
JFace/SWT again.....]

> BTW, the base Eclipse product does things VS.Net doesn't. And it is free!

Of course. They have a set of common features as well as unique features.
VS.NET just has more unique features. It still manages to miss many that I
like though.... :-(

> Don't get me wrong, everyone. VS.Net is a good product. I just don't
think
> it is that much, if any, better than WSAD.

To each, their own Mark.

Kunle



> "Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3cbab2a5$1@10.1.10.29...
> >> Glad I looked at this post too.
> >
> >;-)
> >
> >> SWT, from what I can tell, will currently run on Linux, Windows and
Unix.
> >
> >Info I read on www.eclipse.org only mentioned Windows and Linux. Perhaps
> it
> >was out of date.
> >
> >> The Eclipse (and all variants) were developed using SWT. It runs
faster
> >> on my laptop than VS.Net. Rational's XDE (standalone version) was
written
> >> as an Eclipse plug-in and uses SWT.
> >
> >VS.NET is a much-more fully featured, "heavy weight" product Mark. I
would
> >expect it to be slower. It is mostly written in C/C++ and any speed
> >difference is unrelated to UI issues. Eclipse is faster because it
> >[currently] does much less?
> >
> >Kunle
> >
> >
>