Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jan 2010 20:01 UTC
Internet Explorer It would appear that Microsoft will finally take standards compliance in the browser world seriously, after dragging its feet for years. Back in November 2009, the Redmond giant already revealed that Internet Explorer 9 would come with CSS3 and HTML5 support, and now the cup runneth over, as Microsoft has requested to join the W3C's SVG Working Group.
Thread beginning with comment 402930
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Jan 2010 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see the real urgency, when today, now, at this moment, you can write RIAs in Silverlight and be more productive than with anything HTML5/SVG/CSS3 could possibly offer up.

Nice additions sure, but its not the end of the world. Flash just gives plugin based RIAs a bad name, Silverlight runs circles around it performance wise.

Silverlight still does things faster than every browsers Javascript implementation, especially with the GPU support in Silverlight3.


Assuming you live in a Windows only world; what about those on non-Windows machines? what about those who then end up creating non-portable Silverlight applications by using the new COM feature (in Silverlight 4) to call native code? If everyone was a first class citizen on Silverlight because Microsoft gave a crap about more than just the Windows implementation then I'd be happy to jump on the Silverlight bandwagon but when non-Windows users are relegated to second class citizenship (both plugin and development tools) one is stuck between either the abortion of a RIA called Flash or Silverlight where all non-Microsoft platforms are second class citizens.

Edited 2010-01-07 00:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Thu 7th Jan 2010 01:21 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Assuming you live in a Windows only world; what about those on non-Windows machines?


Silverlight is available on OSX and Linux (using Moonlight). Silverlight is also coming to Windows Mobile 7 and Symbian (so far)


what about those who then end up creating non-portable Silverlight applications by using the new COM feature (in Silverlight 4) to call native code?


Using COM interop in Silverlight really is like using COM interop in .NET. Used only in extremely specific situations. I highly doubt it will be this widespread thing.

With that said, I don't like it. However it was apparently a really requested feature.


If everyone was a first class citizen on Silverlight because Microsoft gave a crap about more than just the Windows implementation then I'd be happy to jump on the Silverlight bandwagon but when non-Windows users are relegated to second class citizenship (both plugin and development tools)


I can certainly see your point, but I think that with Silverlight4 its not an issue. For OSX Silverlight parity is like 0.9999999:1 with Windows. The exception being COM support.

However with Silverlight being given Full Trust Out of Browser support it is really a Cross Platform implementation of the .NET Framework.

It will all be up to how the developers use the technology, and I think that the developers using Silverlight do not act in lock step with whatever alleged diabolical scheme Microsoft has to lock people into COM+Silverlight apps.

There is a pretty pervasive mentality in the .NET scene where COM hatred is widespread. Personally I cringe whenever I have to do interop and think the entire idea is an abomination.

Besides for 99% of RIA work with Silverlight, you dont need COM at all.

As for the dev tools, I agree they need to be cross platform. A glimmer of hope being that Expression Blend is a 100% WPF application which offers some potential for being ported to Silverlight+Full Trust OOB in the future.

VS2010 is mixed mode, but more and more of it is being written in WPF opening up the future for it to go down that path as well.


one is stuck between either the abortion of a RIA called Flash or Silverlight where all non-Microsoft platforms are second class citizens.


I think they've done a commendable job of keeping OSX in the loop. In fact, if you stop to think, besides the COM automation, they have a spotless record of cross platform with OSX.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Jan 2010 03:36 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Silverlight is available on OSX and Linux (using Moonlight). Silverlight is also coming to Windows Mobile 7 and Symbian (so far)


The current implementation of Moonlight is behind what Microsoft has provided - couple that with crap/non-existant development tools on non-Windows computers, if you're a developer and on a non-Windows platform you going to be shit out of luck.

Using COM interop in Silverlight really is like using COM interop in .NET. Used only in extremely specific situations. I highly doubt it will be this widespread thing.

With that said, I don't like it. However it was apparently a really requested feature.[/quote]

What are the chances that one is going to see it get widely used by developers too lazy to create a .NET framework required for his Silverlight project? It wouldn't be so bad if it was possible to bundle com and so forth using a technology like mainsoft to achieve compatibility between platforms - but Microsoft hasn't provided it.

[q]I can certainly see your point, but I think that with Silverlight4 its not an issue. For OSX Silverlight parity is like 0.9999999:1 with Windows. The exception being COM support.

However with Silverlight being given Full Trust Out of Browser support it is really a Cross Platform implementation of the .NET Framework.

It will all be up to how the developers use the technology, and I think that the developers using Silverlight do not act in lock step with whatever alleged diabolical scheme Microsoft has to lock people into COM+Silverlight apps.

There is a pretty pervasive mentality in the .NET scene where COM hatred is widespread. Personally I cringe whenever I have to do interop and think the entire idea is an abomination.

Besides for 99% of RIA work with Silverlight, you dont need COM at all.

As for the dev tools, I agree they need to be cross platform. A glimmer of hope being that Expression Blend is a 100% WPF application which offers some potential for being ported to Silverlight+Full Trust OOB in the future.

VS2010 is mixed mode, but more and more of it is being written in WPF opening up the future for it to go down that path as well.


What Microsoft need to do is provide development tools for Mac and OpenSolaris - and I can assure you that very few would keep hanging around with Adobe for longer than necessary. The problem is that Microsoft is short sighted and I simply don't see the changes required actually happening.

I simply don't trust developers from refraining from using COM having see how lazy developers are when push comes to shove. I understand you don't need COM at all but that isn't going to stop developers from making extensive use of it when made available. It is like the win32 extensions to Java - sounds like a nice idea in theory but we can all imagine what will happen in reality.

I think they've done a commendable job of keeping OSX in the loop. In fact, if you stop to think, besides the COM automation, they have a spotless record of cross platform with OSX.


Yes, but Linux is behind the eighth ball for example, there are no development tools for Linux or Mac. I really want Microsoft to beat Adobe into a bloody pulp but it won't happen if they're refusing to provide the necessary tools for developers. I want to use Silverlight and learn how to exploit its power but I'm stuck here with a Mac unable to do it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by BluenoseJake on Thu 7th Jan 2010 03:04 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

There is nothing stopping somebody else from implementing COM on Linux or any other platform, it is just a specification for implementing interfaces to binary objects, no different from CORBA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 7th Jan 2010 06:51 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

There is nothing stopping somebody else from implementing COM on Linux or any other platform, it is just a specification for implementing interfaces to binary objects, no different from CORBA.


Except that COM represents the memory model of an i386 with the specific layout of little-endian MS VS C++. Not the same as cross-platform CORBA really. Certainly no where near as portable as SOAP webservices for remote operations. So, no wonder nobody wants to waste time implementing the archaic, obsolete and cumbersome COM system. Sure they could do it, but the community came up with and standardised vastly superior ways of doing IPC/RPC.

Edited 2010-01-07 06:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4