Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: K. M. Strickler who wrote (17385)	2/11/1998 10:52:00 AM
From: Justin Banks	Respond to of 24154

K.M - Can standards be sort of bypassed by writing code on a 'multi-platform' environment (like C++) where the different platform compiler takes care of the problem? That really just 'moves' the problem from that application programmer to the compiler programmer, but those are generally different people! The problem is that it's hard to write a program that actually does anything when you're only coding to the language standard. That's why there are things like the POSIX standards. They help quite a bit, but are subverted somewhat when a company like MSFT claims to be POSIX compliant, but you can't make any calls to the Win32 API within a POSIX program on NT. Note that I only heard this secondhand, not having done much (any) programming on NT. Given the woes of others I've observed trying to use freeware stuff on NT, I believe it. -justinb

To: K. M. Strickler who wrote (17385)	2/11/1998 2:19:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Ken, I'll expand on Justin's response a bit. A language and a runtime environment are 2 very different things, and are largely independent. That's where the whole "Java is a great language, but you got to write to the Windows API" line comes from. The Windows API, POSIX, C stdio, and the C++ standard template library are all runtime environments of sorts, some pretty independent of the language you call them from, some closely tied to a particular language. OS binding was always a very thorny issue for high level languages. It's always been more of an issue for program portability that differences among language versions, as near as I can tell. I don't write about it much, but old timers here will tell you I get about as aggravated with the various Microsoft attempts to sabotage Java portability as I get with the whole antitrust thing. Portable runtime environments is a missing link that's been attacked in the past without much success. Ada was probably the biggest attempt to define a standard runtime environment as well as language, but it collapsed under its own weight. Microsoft's solution to the problem, of course, is to just run Windows everywhere. Very convenient for them. But, to use a favorite word of Bill's, Windows is just so random. Clean and well thought out? If you've lived with it for a while, I guess you can convince yourself of that. Me, I hold with the Roach Motel metaphor for Windows- code goes in, but it doesn't come out. On the "random" issue, here's a column from a couple days ago which says something about why CS types find Windows world problematic. With Computers, Ugliness Overshadows Beauty nytimes.com "How," he asks, "did ugliness manage to dominate the game for so long?" How could a beautiful machine like Apple's Macintosh, for example, ever have taken second place to the cloddish design of MS-DOS? And now that Microsoft has adopted that design in Windows, why is it, in its marred form, finally acceptable? These are not minor matters. Gelernter considers beauty to be an essential part of the computer revolution; it is, ideally, "a happy marriage of simplicity and power." Right now, he said, both simplicity and power are sadly lacking. Leaving aside the issue of "standard Microsoft business practices", this is my fundamental objection to Windows world. It's just so inelegant. But Microsoft has declared that "though shalt write to the Windows API", and in its war on Java is doing its best to assure that the current best hope for a better environment gets trashed. Compaq removing the sacred IE icon is "slicing and dicing", "fracturing and fragmenting" the "uniformity and integrity of the Windows experience", but Microsoft doing much worse to Java is acceptable and necessary. Oops, I guess that gets us back to SMBP. Cheers, Dan.