Posted by
timothy
on from the not-the-same-as-self-flagellation dept.
Bob Smith writes: "Miguel just commited the last patch nessisary to get Mono's C# compiler to compile itself. After 7 odd months, MCS is now self hosting."jbarn adds: "Mono-list email is here."
This might make it a bit more intriguing
by
f00zbll
·
· Score: 3, Offtopic
There have been several post in the last year about C#, but they were only mildly interesting (ie it only got me to read whitepapers, articles and sample code). Now that mono is progressing forward it is more interesting.
I don't remember all the differences between C# and Java, but it does make it more appealing. Unfortunately, SOAP is a bit heavy for the most simple web services (what ever it means to microsoft). The cost of using soap means the XML has to use DOM and it has to validate the required nodes. From W3C spec on SOAP, it states:
A SOAP message is an XML document that consists of a mandatory SOAP envelope, an optional SOAP Header, and a mandatory SOAP Body.
Anyone working with XML knows that validating DOM structure can be very costly for complex tree structures. For a simple document like SOAP, it's not bad until you realize it is intended for business to business processes, which could mean millions a day. The argument that SOAP is "as simple as it can/should be" ignores the fact that systems that would benefit from SOAP or other XML RPC (remote procedure calling) the most have complex distributed processes. Most of the.NET whitepapers I've read so far recycle ideas others developed. Microsoft's innovation was repackaging it as a platform.
It's too bad microsoft's whitepapers don't credit the orginal authors, since a lot of people worked to push XML forward. In some ways, it feels like SOAP and.NET is a bastardized version of Burners Lee's vision of a semantic web using XML web services and RDF. Perhaps all the press.NET has generated for XML services will help create the critical mass needed to get semantic web moving.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't remember all the differences between C# and Java, but it does make it more appealing. Unfortunately, SOAP is a bit heavy for the most simple web services (what ever it means to microsoft). The cost of using soap means the XML has to use DOM and it has to validate the required nodes. From W3C spec on SOAP, it states:
Anyone working with XML knows that validating DOM structure can be very costly for complex tree structures. For a simple document like SOAP, it's not bad until you realize it is intended for business to business processes, which could mean millions a day. The argument that SOAP is "as simple as it can/should be" ignores the fact that systems that would benefit from SOAP or other XML RPC (remote procedure calling) the most have complex distributed processes. Most of the .NET whitepapers I've read so far recycle ideas others developed. Microsoft's innovation was repackaging it as a platform.
It's too bad microsoft's whitepapers don't credit the orginal authors, since a lot of people worked to push XML forward. In some ways, it feels like SOAP and .NET is a bastardized version of Burners Lee's vision of a semantic web using XML web services and RDF. Perhaps all the press .NET has generated for XML services will help create the critical mass needed to get semantic web moving.