I share the same concern and expressed it to Miguel last week.
However, if we can also link up diverse scripting environments with SOAP and XML-RPC, there's no reason to worry. Choice is key. Most non-Microsoft scripting languages will never run well inside Microsoft's environment. Make it easy for Perl programmers to participate in SOAP networks without leaving home. Same with Java, Python, Tcl, and everything else.
Focus on the protocols, that's what's important. As long as we invest in diversity, Microsoft can't control. Instead of a one-party-system, let's have an n-party-system. That's how we guarantee choice, eliminate lock-in, and maintain forward motion.
BTW, an interesting detail came out at the open source summit on Tuesday. Dick Hardt of ActiveState reports that Perl does not run well in Microsoft's environment. The problem is that Microsoft's virtual machine is designed to run C-like code, but Perl is not like that.
Now I know the solution, we need a DLL-based open scripting architecture, that allows environments to compile and run scripts and have them call back into the environment, much like the architecture we developed on the Mac in the early 90s. Back then it wasn't so interesting because scripting was still pretty small, it was just us and Apple. Ten years later there's been an explosion, and there's another way, beyond XML-RPC, that's needed to integrate. It can be a tough sell to each individual community, as XML-RPC is, because the benefit is that it makes it easy to bridge to other environments. Most communities tend not to see too well outside their borders. But the larger world wants choice. No matter how great your scripting environment, you will eventually meet someone you want to work with who works in a different environment.
Thanks for the clear statement. I couldn't agree more. I wrote a bit about working together on Scripting News this morning before reading this thread. To the RDF guys, working together means not breaking all the developers who implemented 0.91 channels, regardless of how right you think you are.
Let's see, what specific day were you thinking about?;->
I mostly gave up on Apple in late 1997. My company continues to ship Mac software, but I use Windows now. Once Steve Jobs was back at the helm I knew there was no point being involved with Mac software on a personal level.
Anyway I don't understand the rest of your rant, things are going pretty well now. Like I said in the first post, the things we were trying to do for the Mac are working now, everywhere. I feel somewhat vindicated by that. I gotta go for lunch now, so you get the last word!
Your memory is imperfect, I was telling the reporters that the Mac market in the early 90s was bigger than the DOS market of the 80s, that it doesn't have to be as big as Windows to support a thriving developer community.
Anyway the cool thing about Microsoft, unlike Apple back in those days that a little pushback wakes them up. That, and helping organize development around SOAP by independent developers was the purpose of the piece. Funny that what we wanted to do for the Mac is now working on the Internet. Have a great day.
Re:Another case of too little, too late?
on
ESR On XML-RPC
·
· Score: 5
XML-RPC predates SOAP by a few years, and has more implementations, and has demostrated interop. SOAP, which I am also a co-author and supporter of, has not yet reached substantial interop, and this is going to be a bit difficult, but we'll get there. You're right that SOAP has more support from large companies, and that's great, but as an independent developer who doesn't want to be controlled by the large companies, I think XML-RPC provides a valuable insurance policy. I'm very happy to get ESR's endorsement of XML-RPC.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if we can also link up diverse scripting environments with SOAP and XML-RPC, there's no reason to worry. Choice is key. Most non-Microsoft scripting languages will never run well inside Microsoft's environment. Make it easy for Perl programmers to participate in SOAP networks without leaving home. Same with Java, Python, Tcl, and everything else.
Focus on the protocols, that's what's important. As long as we invest in diversity, Microsoft can't control. Instead of a one-party-system, let's have an n-party-system. That's how we guarantee choice, eliminate lock-in, and maintain forward motion.
BTW, an interesting detail came out at the open source summit on Tuesday. Dick Hardt of ActiveState reports that Perl does not run well in Microsoft's environment. The problem is that Microsoft's virtual machine is designed to run C-like code, but Perl is not like that.
Now I know the solution, we need a DLL-based open scripting architecture, that allows environments to compile and run scripts and have them call back into the environment, much like the architecture we developed on the Mac in the early 90s. Back then it wasn't so interesting because scripting was still pretty small, it was just us and Apple. Ten years later there's been an explosion, and there's another way, beyond XML-RPC, that's needed to integrate. It can be a tough sell to each individual community, as XML-RPC is, because the benefit is that it makes it easy to bridge to other environments. Most communities tend not to see too well outside their borders. But the larger world wants choice. No matter how great your scripting environment, you will eventually meet someone you want to work with who works in a different environment.
Right on. Get rid of Mundie and instead have a session on how to do the open version of HailStorm.
Thanks for the clear statement. I couldn't agree more. I wrote a bit about working together on Scripting News this morning before reading this thread. To the RDF guys, working together means not breaking all the developers who implemented 0.91 channels, regardless of how right you think you are.
I mostly gave up on Apple in late 1997. My company continues to ship Mac software, but I use Windows now. Once Steve Jobs was back at the helm I knew there was no point being involved with Mac software on a personal level.
Anyway I don't understand the rest of your rant, things are going pretty well now. Like I said in the first post, the things we were trying to do for the Mac are working now, everywhere. I feel somewhat vindicated by that. I gotta go for lunch now, so you get the last word!
Your memory is imperfect, I was telling the reporters that the Mac market in the early 90s was bigger than the DOS market of the 80s, that it doesn't have to be as big as Windows to support a thriving developer community. Anyway the cool thing about Microsoft, unlike Apple back in those days that a little pushback wakes them up. That, and helping organize development around SOAP by independent developers was the purpose of the piece. Funny that what we wanted to do for the Mac is now working on the Internet. Have a great day.
XML-RPC predates SOAP by a few years, and has more implementations, and has demostrated interop. SOAP, which I am also a co-author and supporter of, has not yet reached substantial interop, and this is going to be a bit difficult, but we'll get there. You're right that SOAP has more support from large companies, and that's great, but as an independent developer who doesn't want to be controlled by the large companies, I think XML-RPC provides a valuable insurance policy. I'm very happy to get ESR's endorsement of XML-RPC.
Hi Dan! I wish the guys would slashdot me we can handle it. http://www.scripting.com/ See you in SF!