Board index » cppbuilder » First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...


2003-12-19 01:07:15 AM
cppbuilder89
I am annoyed that Borland has been swept along with the other software
houses in that they are adopting Microsoft's proprietary inventions such as
C# and .Net, when these are obviously {*word*99}. XML is a bad idea. Anyone can
hack it going over the comms and it's as bloated as hell. We have seen the
rise and fall of DDE, and the reluctance with which Microsoft now support
their own invention Active X (or OCX). Surely, .Net, C# and XML will go the
same way. I don't believe you swallowed Microsoft's game, hook, line and
sinker. They are milking money from everyone, including developers.
<SPECULATION>
Only one thing can explain Borland's behaviour as a supposedly "rival"
software development house to Microsoft - MONEY. Borland were bought out to
stand in the sidelines to Visual Studio, and half-heartedly follow any new
direction Microsoft may now take.
</SPECULATION>
You have made me feel betrayed. There is no one else now. Is this the end of
development as we know it?!?
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

"Mark Jacobs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
DDE, and the reluctance with which Microsoft now support
their own invention Active X (or OCX). Surely, .Net, C# and XML will go the
same way. I don't believe you swallowed Microsoft's game, hook, line and
sinker. They are milking money from everyone, including developers.
I am not going to pick you up on some of your other points as I am sure
there are others out there far more qualified than I.
However your assertion that XML is a Microsoft invention is incorrect. The
main authors of the XML specification had and still have, no tie with
Microsoft.
As for it being {*word*99}, well I can only assume that you have not been show as
to where it is best used. It is a messaging syntax with structure. It is not
a scripting or programming language as a lot of people have tried to
suggest, and when used by an application as a message it is hard to beat,
due to the structure. You certainly do not have to take my word for it. Look
at ALL of the major software houses, which generally would not use {*word*99}. In
the last 18 months the vast majority of new software releases have used XML
as the messaging core for the application, whether it be Builder in the
project files, Redhat for their system files, (Not known to be a big
Microsoft House) or IBM, Adobe, Sun (Again not a great MS house). They are
all using XML in one way or another. This said XML does have a numer of
weaknesses, and with all things in this world should only be used where it
is best. But please do not slag something off just because you do not like
it, by all means have a reasoned argument, in that way people may well be
more inclined to listen.
If you do not wish to spend money on development tools I can understand
that, I use Builder 5 as I saw no reason as to why I should move to builder
6, as it provided me with no added benefit. If you prefer not to spend any
money at all then you could use one of the free gnu compilers. But then you
will be limitting the IDE advances.
Quote
same way. I don't believe you swallowed Microsoft's game, hook, line and
sinker. They are milking money from everyone, including developers.
Well that is their job... They are not a charity. They have provided us with
bloatware and some awfull applications, but also the desktop environment
that we know and use today. Without which maybe PC takeup and our
application developments would not be so far advanced!!!
Quote
<SPECULATION>
Only one thing can explain Borland's behaviour as a supposedly "rival"
software development house to Microsoft - MONEY. Borland were bought out
to
stand in the sidelines to Visual Studio, and half-heartedly follow any new
direction Microsoft may now take.
</SPECULATION>
Ahh I am glad to see that you have used some XML markup to diffirentiate one
part of your message from another :-). But again charities they are not, as
I am sure you are not too. Yes I do believe that sometimes things are thrown
at the industry, however we do not have to run with them all of the time. If
you do not want C# then do not use it, nobody is forcing you too. (Its a
good language though as much as it pains me to say) Microsofts .net
framework supports C++, Pascal, and even Cobol I believe, which enables us
to use the language we prefer. .net though is something different I do not
believe it is just a new technology, but as Win32 was to dos, it will be to
the Windows API, so that one we may have to follow.
Quote
You have made me feel betrayed. There is no one else now. Is this the end
of
development as we know it?!?
Or maybe just maybe a new start for Win programming... There is alwways the
Mainframe of course. Cor I did love those blue and green screens. :-)
All the best
Simon Bain
TENdotZERO
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

"Mark Jacobs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
XML is a bad idea. Anyone can hack it going over the comms
First, XML is not a Microsoft invention. Second, a person would have to
hijack the connection to begin with before they could hijack the data.
Third, XML has security features that can be implied if desired. Fourth,
anything that someone can do to XML data, they could do to any other piece
of data as well, XML is not the exemption to that.
Quote
and it's as bloated as hell.
XML was not designed with size in mind. It was designed, however, with
compatibility and ease-of-use. In today's level of technology, those
outweigh any problems of size. Besides, have you ever heard of a little
thing called "compression"? ;-)
Gambit
 

{smallsort}

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote
I am annoyed that Borland has been swept along with the other software
houses in that they are adopting Microsoft's proprietary inventions
such as C# and .Net, when these are obviously {*word*99}.
Maybe obvious to you, but not to everyone else.
Quote
XML is a bad
idea.
I actually agree with this, but I have a reason: XML is hierarchical-based,
which is an older database model, while most modern databases are relational
based and a few are object based. With all that said, XML is a popular
mechanism of moving organized data from one process to another, often
between machines and operating systems, without worrying about binary
representation.
Quote
Anyone can hack it going over the comms and it's as bloated as
hell. We have seen the rise and fall of DDE, and the reluctance with
which Microsoft now support their own invention Active X (or OCX).
Microsoft supported, and still supports ActiveX heavily, and with very
little reluctance. Maybe you are reluctant but they are not.
Quote
Surely, .Net, C# and XML will go the same way. I don't believe you
swallowed Microsoft's game, hook, line and sinker. They are milking
money from everyone, including developers.
Their job is to invent what they think are better technologies and make
money from it, the same as Borland. If you don't like .NET, choose some
other technology to use or program.
Quote

<SPECULATION>
Only one thing can explain Borland's behaviour as a supposedly "rival"
software development house to Microsoft - MONEY.
Is Borland supposed to work for free ? Hard to eat air or live in the woods
under trees when developing software <g>.
Quote
Borland were bought
out to stand in the sidelines to Visual Studio, and half-heartedly
follow any new direction Microsoft may now take.
</SPECULATION>

You have made me feel betrayed. There is no one else now. Is this the
end of development as we know it?!?
Maybe as you know it, but you are free to pick and choose like anyone else.
There is Sun and Java, there's Linux, there's Apple and the Mac, there's IBM
and OS/2, there's mini and mainframe systems. Even on Windows you are free
to use Windows API-based technologies such as MFC or VCL. The latest Visual
Studio .NET 2003 still vigorously supports VC++/MFC programming and, if
Borland has any brains which is no longer certain, they will continue to
support C++ Builder VCL programming in CBX. And of course with CBX you can
supposedly do wxWindows programming although I don't think the pieces to
that are really in place yet.
My view of .NET, having worked with it since its beta, and intensively over
the last half year on my own, is that it has its flaws but it also has lots
of strengths. It is still a work in transition and will not largely replace
traditional Windows programming for a few years yet. Thus my dismay that
Borland is dropping BCB VCL programming at least two years too early, if not
more.
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

Third, XML has security features that can be implied if desired. Fourth,
Hi Gambit,
What is your favourite reference for these security features, or do you have
one? This is something I want to take a look at.
Cheers,
Ted
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

"Simon Bain" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

>
Or maybe just maybe a new start for Win programming... There is alwways
the
Mainframe of course. Cor I did love those blue and green screens. :-)

You had screens?!?
When I started on them, we had only punch cards and printouts, and the
aggravation of programs aborting because someone dropped the cards and
didn't quite get them back in the right order when they were picked up. It
wasn't until I started my first graduate degree that I had regular access to
a dumb terminal! How things have changed!
Back on the topic of XML, what would you say most folk working with XML use
to generate their XML documents. I know I could use a plain text editor
like emacs, which I generally like, but I would have thought that there'd
have been a number of tools developed over the past few years to make
developing them easier.
And on the subject of tools, do you know of any that make addressing
security issues, using the feature Gambit mentioned, easier?
What about interaction between XML documents and relational databases (like
MS Access or MySQL)? My first impression is that it would fit nicely into
an object oriented database framework (though I haven't seen such a thing),
because it is so hierarchical, but that it may not be a great fit with a
relational database managed using SQL. Is that impression wrong?
Cheers,
Ted
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

"Ted Byers" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
What is your favourite reference for these security features
XML Security specifications at www.w3.org, the creator and
standardizer of XML. Look at the "XML Encryption" and "XML Digital
Signature" specs.
Gambit
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

Ted Byers wrote:
Quote
"Simon Bain" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>
>>
>Or maybe just maybe a new start for Win programming... There is
>alwways the Mainframe of course. Cor I did love those blue and green
>screens. :-)
>
You had screens?!?
Amen. Screens didn't exist when I started in mainframe programming circa
1978, except for the single text screen for operators, showing JCL jobs,
which was attached to the mainframe itself. Even dumb teminals running CICS
were rare at the beginning.
Quote

When I started on them, we had only punch cards and printouts, and the
aggravation of programs aborting because someone dropped the cards and
didn't quite get them back in the right order when they were picked
up. It wasn't until I started my first graduate degree that I had
regular access to a dumb terminal! How things have changed!

Back on the topic of XML, what would you say most folk working with
XML use to generate their XML documents. I know I could use a plain
text editor like emacs, which I generally like, but I would have
thought that there'd have been a number of tools developed over the
past few years to make developing them easier.
Most database have tools and APIs to generate XML from relational files. MS
always had MSXML, with various capabiliites, and now XML is officially part
of the .NET framework classes under System.XML.
Quote

And on the subject of tools, do you know of any that make addressing
security issues, using the feature Gambit mentioned, easier?

What about interaction between XML documents and relational databases
(like MS Access or MySQL)?
Endless tools for doing this ( see above and see the doc for any relational
Db ).
Quote
My first impression is that it would fit
nicely into an object oriented database framework (though I haven't
seen such a thing), because it is so hierarchical, but that it may
not be a great fit with a relational database managed using SQL. Is
that impression wrong?
I think it is wrong because object-oriented databases are even less
hierarchical than relational databases. The one good thing that can be said
about XML hierarchy is that it is purely user-driven and can be as simple as
sets of tables, each having a set of records, each having a set of field
values, to any sort of complicated hierarchical structure you like. Still
neither relational or OO databases are really hierarchical but instead
enforce connections through Indices-Fields in relational dbs and
pointer_fields-pointed_to_fields in OO dbs. There is no concept of this in
hierarchical structures and in XML, so that all XML transfers except for the
most simple must enforce relational or OO db connections on the programming
end and not in the XML structure.
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

"Ted Byers" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

>Or maybe just maybe a new start for Win programming... There is alwways
the
>Mainframe of course. Cor I did love those blue and green screens. :-)
>
You had screens?!?
No my first encounter was a big keyboard with punch cards 50 miles from the
main frame
then on to the BBCs see still young.
Ahh the television and tape cassettes.
Quote


Back on the topic of XML, what would you say most folk working with XML
use
to generate their XML documents. I know I could use a plain text editor
like emacs, which I generally like, but I would have thought that there'd
have been a number of tools developed over the past few years to make
developing them easier.
There are a load of tools out there but it really does depend on what you
wish to do.
XMLSpy is good for base structured markup, but I do not like the interface
XMetaL is excellant for documents but very heavy
Xml Author is a Word plugin and again excellant for pure documents, but
light weight for validation
My Favourite is TextPad, syntax highlighting, nice and light, greate
searching capabilities
very reliable and good value.
Quote

And on the subject of tools, do you know of any that make addressing
security issues, using the feature Gambit mentioned, easier?
See Gambits response, but also check out xml.com, and independant web site,
and security.xml.org/ which is run by OASIS an organisation which
looks after certain open standards, originally SGML, again how we have moved
on.
Quote

What about interaction between XML documents and relational databases
(like
MS Access or MySQL)? My first impression is that it would fit nicely into
an object oriented database framework (though I haven't seen such a
thing),
XML is about objects but over many years I have had many discussions with
the high and mighty in the industry about this, many agree and many
disagree, however it can also be irrelevent to the day to day use.
Quote
because it is so hierarchical, but that it may not be a great fit with a
relational database managed using SQL. Is that impression wrong?
It can fit fantastically with relational databases if you use the database
as a storage mechanism which also houses your triggers stored procs etc.
Bring the data out into a structured data source (XML File) from there you
are able to do so much more with it, using XSL turn it into PDF, RTF, CSV,
HTML or another XML syntax for passing to somebody elses unstructured
databases. This is exactly what a number of large organisations do today.
Also the Database vendors such as MS and Oracle are helping by placing XML
modules on to their databases to make life easier.
All of my work is XML driven and the vast majority is Database integration,
which by the large part is relational, not objects. We cannot all afford a
copy of Tamino server.
So although they may seem miles apart in reality they can be brought
together.
A number of the local authority elections in the UK this year were done in
this way as are a number of the online banks, which have Oracle, MS SQL, and
DB2 sitting relationnally in the back with XML comming out to be used on the
site or as messages between the back end systems. So go and play you will be
supprised. (Pleasently I hope).
All the best
Simon Bain
Quote

Cheers,

Ted


 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:51:01 -0500, "Edward Diener"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Ted Byers wrote:
>You had screens?!?

Amen. Screens didn't exist when I started in mainframe programming circa
1978, except for the single text screen for operators, showing JCL jobs,
which was attached to the mainframe itself. Even dumb teminals running CICS
were rare at the beginning.
I remember the first time I used a VT100 terminal connected to a VAX.
I thought I was in heaven. ;-)
vt100.net/vt_history
Michael McCulloch
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

The best reply. Many thanks - these comments are what I was trying to
address. In some of the other replies, mention was made of some older
technologies that were about at the dawn of computing. At the risk of
showing my age, when I started, we were using paper tape in 100 baud rate
terminals connected to remote mainframes via an acoustic modem. Our teacher
would pick up the printouts from the relevant organisations on a weekly
basis. Problems arose when people were too noisy, disrupting the comms on
the acoustic modem, or, as happened to me, someone was standing on the paper
tape as it was being uploaded at 100 baud to the mainframe, and it snapped
halfway through the upload. Not only do you have to upload again, I had to
punch the whole tape again. Oh, and don't talk to me about punched cards - I
had one job where someone had dropped a few boxes, and the whole Fortran
program had to be typed in again by secretaries - it didn't work, so I had
to go through fading printouts to find all the mistyped B's instead of 8's,
O's instead of 0's, I's and l's instead of 1's, etcetera ... At one point I
went out into the corridor to let out a cry of frustration, which had a few
heads popping out of doors! But I got it working in the end. Those weren't
the days!
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
"Edward Diener" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Mark Jacobs wrote:
>I am annoyed that Borland has been swept along with the other software
>houses in that they are adopting Microsoft's proprietary inventions
>such as C# and .Net, when these are obviously {*word*99}.

Maybe obvious to you, but not to everyone else.

>XML is a bad
>idea.

I actually agree with this, but I have a reason: XML is
hierarchical-based,
which is an older database model, while most modern databases are
relational
based and a few are object based. With all that said, XML is a popular
mechanism of moving organized data from one process to another, often
between machines and operating systems, without worrying about binary
representation.

>Anyone can hack it going over the comms and it's as bloated as
>hell. We have seen the rise and fall of DDE, and the reluctance with
>which Microsoft now support their own invention Active X (or OCX).

Microsoft supported, and still supports ActiveX heavily, and with very
little reluctance. Maybe you are reluctant but they are not.

>Surely, .Net, C# and XML will go the same way. I don't believe you
>swallowed Microsoft's game, hook, line and sinker. They are milking
>money from everyone, including developers.

Their job is to invent what they think are better technologies and make
money from it, the same as Borland. If you don't like .NET, choose some
other technology to use or program.

>
><SPECULATION>
>Only one thing can explain Borland's behaviour as a supposedly "rival"
>software development house to Microsoft - MONEY.

Is Borland supposed to work for free ? Hard to eat air or live in the
woods
under trees when developing software <g>.

>Borland were bought
>out to stand in the sidelines to Visual Studio, and half-heartedly
>follow any new direction Microsoft may now take.
></SPECULATION>
>
>You have made me feel betrayed. There is no one else now. Is this the
>end of development as we know it?!?

Maybe as you know it, but you are free to pick and choose like anyone
else.
There is Sun and Java, there's Linux, there's Apple and the Mac, there's
IBM
and OS/2, there's mini and mainframe systems. Even on Windows you are free
to use Windows API-based technologies such as MFC or VCL. The latest
Visual
Studio .NET 2003 still vigorously supports VC++/MFC programming and, if
Borland has any brains which is no longer certain, they will continue to
support C++ Builder VCL programming in CBX. And of course with CBX you can
supposedly do wxWindows programming although I don't think the pieces to
that are really in place yet.

My view of .NET, having worked with it since its beta, and intensively
over
the last half year on my own, is that it has its flaws but it also has
lots
of strengths. It is still a work in transition and will not largely
replace
traditional Windows programming for a few years yet. Thus my dismay that
Borland is dropping BCB VCL programming at least two years too early, if
not
more.


 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

Simon Bain wrote:
[...]
Quote
As for it being {*word*99}, well I can only assume that you have not been show as
to where it is best used. It is a messaging syntax with structure. It is not
a scripting or programming language as a lot of people have tried to
suggest, and when used by an application as a message it is hard to beat,
due to the structure. You certainly do not have to take my word for it. Look
at ALL of the major software houses, which generally would not use {*word*99}. In
the last 18 months the vast majority of new software releases have used XML
as the messaging core for the application, whether it be Builder in the
project files, Redhat for their system files, (Not known to be a big
Microsoft House) or IBM, Adobe, Sun (Again not a great MS house). They are
all using XML in one way or another. This said XML does have a numer of
weaknesses, and with all things in this world should only be used where it
is best. But please do not slag something off just because you do not like
it, by all means have a reasoned argument, in that way people may well be
more inclined to listen.
The problem with XML is that it is a *markup* language, with nothing to
mark up. When marking up text the verbosity of HTML/XML tags is
reasonable: it makes tags stand out and if tags are sufficiently sparse,
it doesn't increase the size of the text too much.
When you remove the underlying text you are left with an horribly
verbose syntax that is highly unefficient to store and transmit, and is
not very clear to the human eye unless it is properly formatted. Yet
formatting is not part of the syntax...
In practice you substituted protocol analyzers with specialized editors.
Note that some of the ideas behind XML are very sound: most notably the
concept of expressing meta information with the same syntax as document
contents. It's the implementation that is terrible, and can be only
partly justified by the pre-existence of parsing technology and HTML
know-how.
Cheers,
Nicola Musatti
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

Nicola Musatti < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
[snip]
Quote
Note that some of the ideas behind XML are very sound: most notably
the concept of expressing meta information with the same syntax as
document contents.
It is a sound idea but not new: Lisp and others are doing this for
decades. XML is not executable, though. A report specification can be
written in Lisp on a more readable way than on XML and then you can
pass the specification to a Lisp compiler for executing the
report. The "code is data is code" paradigm is something the XML folks
prefers to ignore.
Quote
It's the implementation that is terrible, and can be only partly
justified by the pre-existence of parsing technology and HTML
know-how.
Terrible things can't be justified, just explained :-)
--
Oscar
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

Quote
It is a sound idea but not new: Lisp and others are doing this for
decades. XML is not executable, though. A report specification can be
XML of course is a subset of SGML created back in 1968 / 69 by and IBM
lawyer Charles Goldfarb, who is still very influential in the markup world.
So it too has been around for a few years... Maybe even longer than lisp.
Cheers
Simon Bain
 

Re:First DDE then OCX then .NET then ...

"Nicola Musatti" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Note that some of the ideas behind XML are very sound: most notably the
concept of expressing meta information with the same syntax as document
contents. It's the implementation that is terrible, and can be only
partly justified by the pre-existence of parsing technology and HTML
know-how.
Ahh I agree that it is the implementations which can be and often are at
fault, however to say that it can only be partially justified by the parsing
technology of HTML, is completely missing out the 30 year history of SGML of
which XML is a subset and HTML is an application.
Most car manufactureres, Drug companies, aerospace manufacturers and other
multinational organisations have been using this parsing technology for
decades, 3 and a bit to be precise, and so maybe XML has a little more too
it. But also maybe the applications should only use it where appropriate and
not just for the sake of saying XML :-)
Cheers
Simon Bain