Slashdot Mirror
Joel On Microsoft's API Mistakes
AceMarkE writes "Joel Spolsky of Joel on Software has posted an article entitled "How Microsoft Lost the API War". He covers why the Win32 API is important to Microsoft, what they've done to keep it working, why Microsoft's switch to the .Net platform is both a good and bad idea, and why he feels the browser will be the real future of application development. Definitely worth a read no matter what your opinion of Microsoft is."
I have 2 comments:
.NET doesn't go there; the GUI interface is very much tied to Windows.
1. Web clients vs. rich user interfaces
I have long wondered why web interfaces aren't much good. The technologies are there; Java applets, Flash, Python could do it, JavaScript could with a few extensions, XUL, heck, even C, compiled on the fly. All these stop just short of integrating well with the web and the client platform. Why? Why has nobody managed (or tried) to take the last step? Even
2. API changes
Contrary to Microsoft's, UNIX and POSIX APIs have been very stable. There have been extensions, but the bulk of what used to work still works. This makes the case for switching over to standard technologies, now that Microsoft is pushing you to switch anyway.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
A closed set of poorly documented APIS
Say what you like about MS's evil ethics but *do not* mock their API docs. They're very good.
No it isn't, it's easy to be a Mac (OS X) user. No Viruses, No Trojans, a sytem that stays up pretty much indefinitely, and great, great applications that do everythinbg I need and much more besides that I probably don't really need, if I'm honest. This old argument about Mac having no apps is very old, very tired, and very tiresome. Please stop.
Honestly, I think breaking API compatibility is the only way for MS to actually fix the problems with Windows. A lot of the problem seems to be the large amount of old code and cruft that has been left in the name of backwards compatibility.
It's certainly a big risk to the Microsoft monopoly, but it's a necessary step for them. Now would be a good time for Linux to make a big move for the desktop.
The reason for the death of the API is probably GNU/Linux. A closed set of poorly documented APIS
doesn't compare to much to "We'll give you the source code"
Microsoft Developer Network has comprehensive documentation about the Microsoft APIs. When I was developing for Windows platform, I never needed any documentation other than MSDN. And if you want source code, you can download the SDKs for free. Though it contains only sample codes, I wonder how many Linux developers looked at the sources of the APIs they use. I have never did such a thing.
MS may have a long way to fall, but they will become increasingly irrelevant like IBM has.
As far as I am concerned, they don't need to go out of business to have fallen. They just need to lose most of the influence and power they have gained through their illegal and unethical business practices.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
I've programmed for Win32, MacOS Classic, and MacOS Carbon. Of those APIs, Win32 was the easiest to use and had the best documentation. Carbon came in second, with Classic a very distant third.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Yes, there is a lot of investment in old Win32 code.
.NET 1.0 vs 1.1 and Avalon/XAML vs Win32) are mute, considerring that they *don't break backward compatability*.
.Net, and *that* is not something that MS could afford doing.
Yes, there isn't such a big incentive *right now* to write code for Avalon / XAML.
Yes, MSDN Magazine has the *wrong* attidue (notice the ratio of artciles about yet-unavailable technologies to availiable technologies in it recently?)
As a matter of fact, personally, I didn't bother with them because I've more pressing concerns at the moments.
But, the thing is:
By all accounts - Longhorn *will* keep the reknown MS' backward compatability.
A> There hbeen nothing on the contrary.
B> MS has a *really* good track record.
The so-called breaking changes (he mentions
The change in VB.NET is indeed a breaking change.
But, it's not the first time that VB update break existing code (as a matter of fact, I think that is normal for VB, although the changes are usually minimal)
VB.Net is a new language, VB6 has reached its end, you might want to compare it to the transition from C to C++, you've to break compatability (for the furious: byte *buffer = malloc(1024); isn't legal c++)
And if you're going to break compatability, why not do it in a way that is still largely the same, but gives you *so much more* freedom & flexibility.
The other choice would've been to exclude VB from
So, in short, Joel is talking about moving away from old technology (Win32) that he descibe as hard to use and error-prone to a better, OO, managed way of doing things.
While at the same time *retaining* backward compatability.
I don't get it.
Sure, a lot fo code is now not the newest & brightest, but you can say the same about COBOL.
About MS losing the desktop to Web app, that is bull.
Personally, I can't *stand* using webmail, the latency there is killing me.
Any sort of web app is usually a mess to write & maintain correctly - especially cross-platform(for example, Firefox 0.9 can't show *Slashdot* properly - I get all sorts of hovering errors when tables over-write one another. Strangely, IE show it perfectly well. And I usually use Firefox, for the reasons Joel mentioned).
Yes, MS made a big mistake with not updating IE, but I can see their point.
If they are going to sell Longhorn, it needs to be more than snappy UI & pretty pictures (especially for the business client).
It has to have *killer app* - IE 7 & WMP 10 are probably on top of the list at MS.
I'm certain that we will so much improved applications that require Longhorn (DirectX for Longhorn isn't that much of a long call - by the time that it would be out, 2000 would be an old system, and MS can justify not supporting it on Win2K. Games are the #1 killer app, after all.)
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Joel confuses binary compatibility with API compatibility.
Microsoft continues to support backward binary compatibility. My DOS applications still run on WinXP.
Also, Microsoft has always changed its APIs over time to keep up with the state of the art. This is why we have ATL, MFC, and tons of other libraries for the same underlying problems.
Conclusion: This is nothing new.
----
Notes on Stuff
Wow - I never knew before reading this article that Microsoft's Visual C++ Compiler is now free. (Free as in 'beer' of course.)
I used to preach the "web is everything" argument from every soap box I could. I don't think HTTP and HTML will cut it for the types of interactive programs we will see in the future. Heck, in many cases they don't cut it now.
.NET for about 2.5 years now I can go into my office and find any number of contradictory statements about the .NET APIs, statements published my MS! I think this is hurting them quite a bit.
I can see technologies like SOAP enabling rich clients to interop across platforms (ok MS haters, SOAP is a mult-vendor thing so don't reply telling me some tinfoil hat story on how MS will patent SOAP and sue anyone who uses it without license). I am willing to bet some other protocols similar to SOAP, or perhaps riding on top of SOAP, will come along to allow richer communication across networks. HTML just isn't going to do it.
While I totally agree that open standards and open source make the best APIs, MS failed way before even that line. Take SMB for example. Their systems, by design or mistake, don't even follow their own standard! I am betting it is a little of both. Their APIs are this way as well. What is really hurts MS in this particular area is poor documentation and poor implimentation of their own APIs. Having worked with
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
And people say the evil giant doesn't try to fix it's software. They fixed SimCity DAMN IT!
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
Non-existant API Docs for Qt are located at http://doc.trolltech.com/3.2/index.htmls -api/
KDE's are at http://developer.kde.org/documentation/library/cv
Thats every function call to program in KDE and Qt all completeley cross-refrenced, with examples.
If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
Umm... HTML and HTTP *are* open standards that are backed heavily by Microsoft that give power and flexibility to developers. :)
If you were using something other than HTML and HTTP, you wouldn't be doing Web development; you'd be doing some other kind of development.
Macromedia Flash applications backed by SOAP look very interesting for apps requiring more GUI-like, real-time interaction. This is basically what Java applets were intended for.
I program in Objective-C, using Cocoa libs under Mac OS X. ;-)
What's amazing is that Java combined with the hack-y nature of the Win32 APIs finally forced Microsoft to create something that's still not as good as NeXTStep was 15 years ago, and probably isn't ( yet ) as good as Java ( it's just optimized for it's single target platform ).
I'll leave for those who care to debate Java vs .NET. For me, that's a debate that is pointless unless .NET somehow becomes cross-platform, at which point I expect Bill Gates to burst into flames.
Already there are still people using DOS and Windows 3.X and refuse to upgrade. There will be people using 32 bit Windows for a long time as well.
Eventually the WINE development team will crack most of the undocumented Win32 API calls and make WINE better with each release. When that happens, Microsoft will have abandoned the Windows 32 bit platform for Longhorn. Then Linux + WINE will be very valuable for people with new machines who can only run Longhorn or Linux.
My only request is that WINE and other programs than run softare using the Win32 APIs, create a sandbox to prevent viruses and worms from spreading.
The bets are on as to how soon those Longhorn viruses and worms come out after Longhorn is released.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Once you get used to building projects where you can view data paths from end to end with no opaque blocks in the middle, and once you get used to being able to compile debug code into any and every library, you'll never want to go back.
Comprehensive up to a point. In fact, not comprehensive at all. People have sold books, profitting from Microsoft's incomplete documentation. I think the grandparent post is somewhat exagerated in saying that it was Linux that made Microsoft put aside the API. However, in my particular case, it was the incomplete API documentation that made me stop using NT and start programming in Qt in Linux. I tried and tried, and there was no way I could make a data acquisition program I was writing to work well under NT 4. I did exactly what the MSDN documentation said. Then, in desperation, I tried to learn Qt. 20 minutes after starting to read the Qt documentation I had my first non-trivial working Qt program. That was in 1998, and I never wrote a MS-Windows program ever since. I have migrated with little effort my MFC programs to Qt/KDE. I only need three sources of documentation: qt3-assistant, Johnson & Troan's "Linux Application Development", and Rubini's "Linux Device Drivers". Plus the thousands of sites in the web where I can find source code for Linux, of course. A complete documentation is good, but nothing can replace a good set of examples.
Poppycock! When I write code under Linux, I go to man and Google first, not the source. In my experience, the MSDN library is more than a match - it's very good documentation. The problem is the sheer number of APIs under Windows..
Most of my work these days is under Windows, and I will freely admit that on occasion I have used the source that Microsoft provides. That's right, I have the source to MFC, C library, ATL, WTL, etc. It's not due to lack of documentation though. I often debug in to assembly code, but it's normally to get to somewhere else (e.g. step in to the COM libraries to reach my COM code) and the debug symbols that are freely available normally suffice to give me enough context
Well I have posted twice about this as I read, and now must say that I found the root of the article. It was all a damn ad!
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
You've obviously never worked with win32. We're talking a half-dozen library calls and about the same number of strange handle types & structures to do something simple like get a directory listing & then look at the dates on files. MFC and .NET may be more usable but they still have an underpinning on an API that was designed to be backwards compatable with 16 bit windows and the 16 bit Windows API was an outgrowth of the structure of a large assembly program rather than being designed with any sort of usability in mind.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
This is an Open Source fantasy. It simply isn't true no matter how much you love Linux (and I love Linux a lot). The API is not dead, it only seems that way to the Slashdot crowd who see thing through glasses with a unique prescription. Believe it or not, as of yet, Linux is not sweeping the world like a storm...
"It's open and documented such that developers feel comfortable using it and feel like they're getting a powerful suite."
This is only true for Open Source masochists. Building software that does not require the user to have intimate relationships with the OS to install, this is still a large issue that is more or less ignored by all the elitist "gurus" out there.
"One thing that Microsoft hope doesn't happen is Mono becoming the defacto standard and not the MS framework."
Honestly. This is not a troll. Is *anyone* actually taking this seriously? Mono is more or less a "If Microsoft can do it, OSS can do it better" type of deal. Mono is a tool in search of a problem. Write once, run anywhere is a fantasy that just does not provide any real world solutions to real world problems. The only reason so many people are using .NET is because Microsoft has made it the default environment, not because they have problems that only .NET can solve.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
So the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted to develop almost every significant new application as a web application.
.NET towards building a open web application, and making that application portable. You start stealing from the edges of Window developers. You start picking away at the hordes. That's how you win, you take Microsoft's strongest weapon away - the masses of developers. Where the devs go, users will follow.
Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web applications don't require Windows.
It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared; they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: "Microsoft is betting the company on the rich client." You'll see that somewhere in every slide presentation about Longhorn. Joe Beda, from the Avalon team, says that "Avalon, and Longhorn in general, is Microsoft's stake in the ground, saying that we believe power on your desktop, locally sitting there doing cool stuff, is here to stay. We're investing on the desktop, we think it's a good place to be, and we hope we're going to start a wave of excitement..."
The trouble is: it's too late.
So, when Slashdot goes on and on about how great Mozilla is (and it is good, I'm not saying it isn't - I really like FireFox 0.9) and laments how Microsoft hasn't done a damn thing with IE since 2001, and how you need the Google toolbar and this and that - remember that quote.
Microsoft wants to slow DOWN the rate of advancement in the browser. If you buy that, and buy Joel's premise on that, you now should conclude something VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
Mozilla for Windows may be the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT OSS project there is. In many ways, it is just as important as developments in Gnome and the linux kernel, disk systems, network protocols, what have you. It's advancements in being able to push rich applications is vital. It's replacement for Active Scripting needs to be secure. Every step it makes pushes another developer that may have gone to use the Windows API or
is hardly the main productivity boost in people's programming environments. Sure it is a productivity boost, but not the main or even the biggest one.
The main productivity boost in Python, for example, is its dynamic typing. Its simplicity second, and automatic memory management as a third, perhaps.
Also, his claim that you don't have to debug memory leaks with Garbage Collection is a common fallacy. Garbage Collection makes it very possible to leak memory, often in more difficult ways to debug, since the developer is typically unaware of what memory is behind held by which objects as usually there is no need to put much thought into the issue.
OK, no offence but it's pretty clear that you've not done a huge amount of programming, at least, not with APIs of any size.
No API of any complexity at all is a "black box" - they are often backed by millions of lines of code, and that code, just like application code, will contain bugs and odd behaviours. The documentation will be incomplete - very few people can spec out a complex API to the degree needed to truly understand it, even when you have documentation coming out of your ears like with MSDN.
Even assuming the API is perfection itself, it'll always be lacking SOME feature you want. Openness of an API is a very important thing indeed.
The win32 api, especially from a modern standpoint is just a bizarre creation. Certainly a lot more complex then the stdio, and other Unix libraries. It's grown in strange ways, by using the 'reserved' bits for new things, cramming weird structures in other structures.
but I've always been able to find documentation on every part of it. Microsoft documentation is very good, and has always been.
I'm sure there are a lot of bizzare hacks and special modes that are not documented, but if you base your code off the documented APIs, you'll be fine.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
> Dude, why *would* I want to debug the systems' calls.
I don't think he was saying you want to debug other people's stuff. If you have a full debugging version of all the libraries (your and other peoples) it is *much much* easier to debug problems.
And even though I may not want to debug other people's libraries and such, I have had to. This is how I have found bugs in things like PHP, mod_python and such. They were corner cases to those developers, but they weren't for my applications. I'm thankful I could track those problems down, because my application got back up and running again. Not usually the case when I have proprietary closed libraries.
Ciao!
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
What's with the backslash in GNU\Linux? You look suspicious to me, Microsoft boy.
The browser will not be the future of application development as long as spyware/adware exists! Yes, even Mozilla is susceptible to this(the ad/spyware that affects Window's TCP/IP stack or however to re-route connections). That is why it won't work for awhile. That is why we're moving an entire PHP site to Visual C#(with PHP backend on the server, for now).
Just my 2c, but I am sick and tired of hearing "The app is broken" and telling them to run ad-aware and hearing "Ok, it's fixed now. Try not to let it happen again." argh!
Anyone else see this list? I scoffed at most of it instantly. Sure, the author apoligizes for a few of them but very poorly and with no explanation.
The author says that some of these can be solved by JavaScipt. No; all of them can be easily solved with Javascript. And if you don't like Javascript, try using ActiveX, DHTML/CSS, Java, Flash, ColdFusion, or any of the other many options out there.
It is true that these solutions take a little more work, but everyone knows that. The author admitted that much.
My question is this: If the author doesn't even say this list is accurate, why did he even put it in the article?
If he must make a point about the web versus Microsoft, make it about the fact that Microsoft refuses to update their web browser even though everyone knows that it was not even standard compliant when it was last released so very long ago. There are much better browsers that are still under constant development including Opera, Panther, and Mozilla to name some excellent examples.
Mufasa http://www.firetiger.net/
Some of your points are valid, but it doesn't matter WHY Microsoft is changing around API's, it's the fact that they are changing at all.
.NET stuff, when you could just code web apps, or apps based on Open Source, and *know* they will work in the future? And the other point is that companies aren't going to jump on the new platforms because they won't be released for several years and won't be mainstream for several years past that, if at all, with competition brewing.
Sure, backwards compatibility with Win32. But not full backwards compatibility, it's more like a subsystem.
The point is, why re-code all your applications for the new longhorn stuff, why re-code all your applications for all the
It's an interesting time, and I won't bet on either side of the coin. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
ps. Mozilla and Firefox run Slashdot and 99.8% of web sites out there perfectly for me.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Debuging into system librarys ? Librarys should be blackboxes, and you should be able to trust them.
That bit of the article really got me. How many memory allocators do they need to debug or secure? How many exploits might be found by pretending to be SimCity or other applications and getting branched off to languid backwaters of code that don't get much ttention anymore?
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
You're claiming that MSDN is impossible to read? I've been a programmer working in Windows development for years, using Win32 APIs, MFC, and various other bits and pieces. Say what you like about the interfaces themselves, Microsoft's documentation is, and always has been, comprehensive and remarkably well organised for something on that scale. Compared to typical *nix man pages or trying to sort out perldoc, it's paradise, and why the top-level poster thought giving the source code was at all equivalent to giving good documentation I have no idea.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Librarys should be blackboxes, and you should be able to trust them.
*wipes away a tear*
Thanks... I needed that. If I had modpoints, you'd have +1 Funny right now.
- fader
From a cross-platform C/C++ programmer who is probably not as good as Joel, a couple of issues.
.net. It still calls down to the Win32 layer. Why would I not still call the Win32 API directly? Apps still work under 9x and Ntx based systems. I really don't see MS scrapping kernel32 or user32 in the near future.
1) It's not ANSI VB or ANSI Win32. If you settle on a programming environment controlled by one vendor, then they can change the language specifications at will. I wrote my System/UI specific wrapper functions over a decade ago. Why didn't Joel?
2) Joel compares C/C++ memory management to automatic vs manual transmissions. I would associate memory management in C/C++ to doctors who know once they make an incision, they have to close it back up when done. Either you know the procedure (or launguage) or you don't. The article seems to want to apologize for all the Comp Sci grads who don't have a clue when it concerns system level programming (I found one in my office this week).
3) VB is a layer on top of Win32. So is MFC. From the object dumps I've run on MSIL applications, so is
4) The Win32 API is feature rich. Give credit where it is due. The Win32 API evolved from the OS/2 API developed in the late 80's in conjuction with IBM.
5) The reason Raymond Chen had to make the effort to be backwards compatible was that some published API calls were always different than the implementation (say API bug). Remember the DOS bug/feature that allowed TSR's? Remember when DDE turned into netDDE which turned into COM? This brain-dead logic has carried MS through until modern day XP. As an API/Library developer for my companies products, I've had to tell third parties I made a bad design decision (2) and you need to re-compile with the new library/API header. All of them appreciate and understand my mistake. Why can't Microsoft do this?
Great article, just some food for thought from a old time beer drinking hippie programmer. Gotta go, playing network freecraft with my ten year old.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn.
... on their own platform
.NET and some technologies that NEVER took off, I can still use DDE for my IPC needs. And even MS's own apps like IE still do.
.. in fact, one major REASON it's moving to a new set of API's is to avoid the commodity the Win32API is becoming!
So if I'm interpreting accurately, Microsoft just pulled off a successful vaporware strike
The rest of Joel's rant is just way off track. Microsoft has ALWAYS pushed a new incompatible tech, while keeping old ones around. I mean hey even after I got COM, OLE2, COM+,
People predicted MS was going to put itself out of business when it came out with NT, because well hey while you're learning a new API, you might just switch to Solaris (now on x86!) or that exciting OS/2 thing... Microsoft succeeded for two reasons: it kept trying ("third time is the charm" really applies to MS) and its competitors kept screwing up. I don't actually see that changing significantly.
MS is hardly doomed
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
The first big win was making Visual Basic.NET not backwards-compatible with VB 6.0. This was literally the first time in living memory that when you bought an upgrade to a Microsoft product, your old data (i.e. the code you had written in VB6) could not be imported perfectly and silently. It was the first time a Microsoft upgrade did not respect the work that users did using the previous version of a product.
Bullcrap! I bought heavily into MS's bull about being able to develop with Word and Excel macros in the Visual Basic scripting language. I wrote several applications for customers that had lotsa finely crafted Word and Excel macros. I bought the first round of Microsoft documents that told me how to do these things. I never bought the second round.
You know why? Because they changed everything in the shift from Office 6.0 to Office 97! All of a sudden, every API in the Visual Basic scripting language that underlaid Office changed; not just a little, but enough that a whole new shelf of documentation was needed. When I presented my clients with estimates of what was needed to rewrite the macros to make them work under the new Office they quietly asked that I restore Office to the old version. No can do! Microsoft had made that impossible!
Failing that, my clients insisted that it was my duty to make the macros work with the new version of Office no charge. This would have required rewriting them. Riiiiight! I was gonna do that! In the end, they went back to doing it by hand and I never got another job from them!
Developers! Developers! Developers! indeed! How many more times do you think I did anything with Microsoft tools?
Random MS vs Linux or whatever point:
.NET framework and would love to see it become the standard for cross platform applications. I would also love to see cross platform applications become the standard ;-)
ATI and nVidia are in what I like to call "good competition". I can choose one or the other with minimal negative side effects for either choice. Their products are complete substitutes for each other and that is good. They force each other to be innovative.
The current (and for the forseeable future) situtation with operating systems isn't so wonderful. Mac, Windows, Linux, and Unix are certainly in "bad competition". I can't switch between them that easily. If I choose the wrong one I've got major problems. Can't run this game on Linux, can't get that application for Mac, constantly fighting spyware on Windows, etc. Their products fill different, but similar needs. Maybe it is just the nature of the product, but it really sucks. Sure the normal rules of competition apply, you need to have better stuff than the compedators. Unfortunatly, operating system vendors can easily lock you into their product. Changing my video card may cause an visual artifact in 1 out of 20 games, but changing my operating system is gonna throw a wrench in everything.
Platform independant applications exist, but we aren't quite there yet. I think more effort needs to be put into this. Personally, I really like the
I think Microsoft sees that they will not be able to hold onto the operating system market forever and I believe they are making a good move (both for themselves and for the industry) by depreciating native Win32 in Longhorn. Hopefully, the bet-the-company mentality will let them force people to accept change.
http://brandonbloom.name
Ok, let me get this straight:
.NET and a whole bunch of other replacement APIs
.Net is a GREAT step forward (if not for everybody else, at least for people who previously lived lives subsisting off prior Microsoft C/C++/COM/ActiveX/etc. sludge).
Technical community and pundits: OMIGOD the windows API is so crappy and kludgy and windows crashes a bazillon times a day and you shot my dog
Microsoft: no, it's actually YOUR badly written applications
TCP: OMIGOD it's still your fault
MS: That's ok we fixed it for you anwyay.
TCP: OMIGOD why did you waste all that energy on such and old and rotten API! You suck! HUZZAH! I'm throwing salt in your eyes
MS: Yeah, I know, we finally decided it was time to part with all that baggage and hired smart guys that you seemed to like and invented
TCP: OMIGOD why did you do this to me!? I thought you loved me!? I'm going to run off with my new lover "teh intarweb" where we will make complicated scientific visualization applications out of javascript and feed starving mouths with semantic web markup alone, and live in a utopian libertarian dream!
I don't buy it. I think Joel has entered the crank-o-sphere. While XUL shows some tentative promise as an application development platform, current web standards are pretty damn CRAPPY at creating rich interactive GUIs or applications of any complexity. That is why we see so much Flash cropping up.
I for one think
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.