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 402945
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Jan 2010 03:36 UTC 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[7]: Comment by Kroc
by cb_osn on Thu 7th Jan 2010 03:54 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

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.

It's not really as bad as it seems. COM interop can only be used by elevated trust, out of browser Silverlight applications. So you won't see it used at all for Silverlight embedded in a web browser since it is not available. Not to mention that COM interop requires the use of the dynamic keyword which means you lose intellisense and all compile time checking on COM objects making programming tedious in a C# environment. I imagine it will only be used for internal LOB applications which require integration with systems and processes where Microsoft Office is already in heavy use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Thu 7th Jan 2010 18:54 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


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.


Moonlight implements most of Silverlight's functionality (with the exception of matured OOB support for example) but they can run 99% of the Silverlight apps out there. They even include some SL3 stuff like (iirc) gpu acceleration.

It sounds like it's really behind Moonlight2 vs Silverlight4, but really it is actually very close.


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 think they are certainly considering it, and certainly going to do it. You see Visual Studio moving more and more towards C# and WPF with large parts of VS2010 being written in WPF, and Blend is 100% C# and WPF..so it is not that farfetched to envision them both as Silverlight Out of Browser apps like Office Live Web Apps.


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.


Well one deterrent is that you need to run full trust OOB applications to use COM automation. This means that normal embedded Silverlight content on the web wont be incompatible at all with Moonlight or Silverlight for 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 agree and am hopeful that they go in the direction you suggest. However speaking from the perspective of just the plugin, it does a commendable job (Certainly better than Flash on OSX or Linux)


I want to use Silverlight and learn how to exploit its power but I'm stuck here with a Mac unable to do it.


MonoDevelop has Moonlight support, it's no Blend or Visual Studio but its usable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Kroc
by Mellin on Fri 8th Jan 2010 10:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Kroc"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Moonlight doesn't have silverlight drm

Reply Parent Score: 2