Board index » off-topic » Re: News from BorCon 2003

Re: News from BorCon 2003


2003-11-17 02:42:10 PM
off-topic16
"Iman L Crawford" <ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com>wrote in message
Quote
>I think the reasons are different. Anybody who approached web
>development needed it and always dreamt of something like this. Where
>is it? Why so many years to have something so obvious???
Well Moz has had this since 1999.
So? How does that help a Delphi developer writing a Win32 application?
Come on Iman...
It's something that has to be in the OS and what strikes me is that we still
don't have it.
Keep in mind that I read almost nothing about Avalon. I spent more time on
the sites you suggested.
This is just a general rant: applies to all OSes <G>
Quote
>IT the fastest slowest world...
Agreed. Always implementing the same thing every 5 years to run on the
most current version of whatever OS is being used.
In top of the other problems.
 
 

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

"Alessandro Federici" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
So? How does that help a Delphi developer writing a Win32 application?
It doesn't. Unless you want to provide a XUL implementation with your
components. :)
Quote
It's something that has to be in the OS and what strikes me is that we
still don't have it.
I don't think it needs to be part of the OS, just standardized.
Quote
Keep in mind that I read almost nothing about Avalon. I spent more
time on the sites you suggested.
All I know about Avalon is a few things I've followed from XUL sites. I
think the whole Moz platform is way cool, but the learning curve is
incredible. I'm sure MS will remedy that.
Quote
This is just a general rant: applies to all OSes <G>
Agreed.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

"Iman L Crawford" <ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com>wrote in message
Quote
It doesn't. Unless you want to provide a XUL implementation with your
components. :)
I'd expect the manufacuter of such frameworks to provide me with those (not
necessarily VCL, but at least .Net or Java based to start with). If somebody
wants their stuff to be used, they should either conform to industry
standards or make one that makes sense to use. Look at Flash. They created
something cool, added all the tools needed to to use it proficiently and
helped the community by providing something useful.
Quote
I don't think it needs to be part of the OS, just standardized.
Bah. It would then risk to be just one of many and only complicate things.
Useful "standards" are those that people use (willing or not) and generally
speaking the process of "standardization" of stuff, often results in {*word*99}py
end-results (see SOAP).
Quote
All I know about Avalon is a few things I've followed from XUL sites. I
think the whole Moz platform is way cool, but the learning curve is
incredible. I'm sure MS will remedy that.
Most likely, but it will probabily end up being something that's gonna add a
lot of very useful things but lack some basic ones. End result: an average
something.
Quote
>This is just a general rant: applies to all OSes <G>
Agreed.
That last one was an MS rant instead <G>Sometimes they do the most
wonderful things but miss some most basic ones (see some parts of WinForms).
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

"Alessandro Federici" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
I'd expect the manufacuter of such frameworks to provide me with those
(not necessarily VCL, but at least .Net or Java based to start with).
There are Java implementations of XUL.
Quote
Flash. They created something cool, added all the tools needed to to
use it proficiently and helped the community by providing something
useful.
Speaking of flash, I think they're working on something similar to
XUL/XAML.
Quote
and generally speaking the process of "standardization" of stuff,
often results in {*word*99}py end-results (see SOAP).
I don't know. NNTP, POP3, SMTP, TCP/IP, LDAP all seem to work pretty well.
Quote
That last one was an MS rant instead <G>Sometimes they do the most
wonderful things but miss some most basic ones (see some parts of
WinForms).
I think that's because they don't eat their own dogfood. At least that is
the impression I get about their apps.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

"Iman L Crawford" <ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com>wrote in message
Quote
There are Java implementations of XUL.
That's a start althought it's funny we talk client UI and Java <G>
How common is to see XUL apps written in Java? (real question, no sarcasm).
Quote
Speaking of flash, I think they're working on something similar to
XUL/XAML.
Cool!
Quote
I don't know. NNTP, POP3, SMTP, TCP/IP, LDAP all seem to work pretty
well.
The devil is in the details but regardless, it seems to me that most of
those standards can be greately improved (I am thinking HTTP right now, but
I am sure POP3 and SMTP have their chunks of gray things <G>).
Quote
>That last one was an MS rant instead <G>Sometimes they do the most
>wonderful things but miss some most basic ones (see some parts of
>WinForms).

I think that's because they don't eat their own dogfood. At least that is
the impression I get about their apps.
They sure do. Why would you think otherwise?
 

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

"Alessandro Federici" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
They sure do. Why would you think otherwise?
I was under the impression Office, Money, etc was not developed with MFC or
the common controls shipped with windows. It wouldn't be the first time I
was wrong.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

"Alessandro Federici" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
The devil is in the details but regardless, it seems to me that most
of those standards can be greately improved (I am thinking HTTP right
now, but I am sure POP3 and SMTP have their chunks of gray things
<G>).
I would think proprietary would have more chunks of gray. You never have
to make sure you're actually following a standard as long as it works as
expected, see smb.
Also, I'm sure a lot of the gray is trying to maintain backwards
compatibility.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

Iman L Crawford wrote:
Quote
"Alessandro Federici" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
>They sure do. Why would you think otherwise?

I was under the impression Office, Money, etc was not developed with
MFC or the common controls shipped with windows. It wouldn't be the
first time I was wrong.
Iman,
I think you are right. AFAIK, the Office apps are written to a higher
level API than MFC because of the need to have a common code base for
the Mac versions of Office.
--
Carl
 

Re:Re: News from BorCon 2003

Iman L Crawford wrote:
Quote
>They sure do. Why would you think otherwise?

I was under the impression Office, Money, etc was not developed with MFC or
the common controls shipped with windows. It wouldn't be the first time I
was wrong.
Money is (or at least it was) written with MFC.
groups.google.com/groups
But that was posted in 1996.
h^2