Friam

Stating the obvious

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Don Begley

Stating the obvious

Not exactly complexity, but Joe Nocera's take on MS/Yahoo is well said.

-d-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080202/7e0ae48f/attachment.html

Owen Densmore

Stating the obvious

Administrator

Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/technology/02nocera.html
.. good article.

-- Owen

On Feb 2, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Don Begley wrote:

> Not exactly complexity, but Joe Nocera's take on MS/Yahoo is well
> said.
>
>
> -d-
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcus G. Daniels

Stating the obvious

In reply to this post by Don Begley

Don Begley wrote:
> Not exactly complexity, but Joe Nocera's take
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/technology/02nocera.html?th&emc=th> on
> MS/Yahoo is well said.
But web-based applications are limited by what web browsers can do, and
how fast they can do it. As those things improve (e.g. JITed
JavaScript), Microsoft has their whole technology platform to draw upon:

http://labs.live.com/volta

Meanwhile, they have most of the desktops in the world, and stock that
performs well...

Marcus

Birchard Hayes

Stating the obvious

Instead of using Microsoft's Volta, I would suggest using tools from
Google Code, http://code.google.com , or Yahoo's developer kits, http://developer.yahoo.com
; and there are many others. If you review the code snippets on the
Volta site you will see the following, which is intended to run on the
client:

using System;
using Microsoft.LiveLabs.Volta.Html;
using Microsoft.LiveLabs.Volta.Xml;

namespace VoltaApplication1 {
public partial class VoltaPage1 : Page {
public VoltaPage1() {
InitializeComponent();
}
}
}

The offending line is "using System;" which creates several problems.
The first is that this code will only run on Windows and only in
Internet Explorer. While it is true that Microsoft has most of the
business desktops, they are losing their grip on the home market, so a
growing percentage of users would be unable to use this application.
The second, and more important problem, is one of security. The
System library provides hooks into the operating system and while
Microsoft has been better about security, this is exactly the sort of
thing that creates dangerous security flaws. I can't think of a
kernel level developer I know that will allow ActiveX content from the
web on their machines, it is akin to leaving your door unlocked in New
York City.

These days, IMHO, Web based applications are generally limited by
bandwidth, network availability, and poor design, rather than the
capabilities of the browser.

On Feb 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> Don Begley wrote:
>> Not exactly complexity, but Joe Nocera's take
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/technology/02nocera.html?
>> th&emc=th> on
>> MS/Yahoo is well said.
> But web-based applications are limited by what web browsers can do,
> and
> how fast they can do it. As those things improve (e.g. JITed
> JavaScript), Microsoft has their whole technology platform to draw
> upon:
>
> http://labs.live.com/volta
>
> Meanwhile, they have most of the desktops in the world, and stock that
> performs well...
>
> Marcus
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong
reasons.
~R. Buckminster Fuller

**** Use of advanced messaging technology does not imply ****
***** an endorsement of western industrial civilization *****

Marcus G. Daniels

Stating the obvious

Birchard Hayes wrote:
> The offending line is "using System;" which creates several problems.
> The first is that this code will only run on Windows and only in
> Internet Explorer.
That's the innovation. CLR bytecodes are interpreted on a JavaScript
interpreter. For example, the demos they have on the Volta site work
(http://labs.live.com/volta/samples.aspx) just fine in Firefox, if slowly.

Indeed `System' is native to Windows, and that fact could be detected
such that CLI bytecodes could be directed to the native engine on a
Windows or Mono-based system for fast execution. Further, Firefox will
also soon have a high performance JIT for JavaScript.
> Instead of using Microsoft's Volta, I would suggest using tools from
> Google Code, http://code.google.com ,
Google does have GWT, but the difference is that they have a very simple
toolkit, not all of Java EE, which would be the analogue to Volta/.NET.
Also Google lacks the very substantial IP in compiler technology that
Microsoft has.
> or Yahoo's developer kits, http://developer.yahoo.com
You mean Microsoft's. ;-)

Birchard Hayes

Stating the obvious

On Feb 3, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Indeed `System' is native to Windows, and that fact could be detected
> such that CLI bytecodes could be directed to the native engine on a
> Windows or Mono-based system for fast execution. Further, Firefox
> will
> also soon have a high performance JIT for JavaScript.

I still don't trust the MS security model, but could just suffering
from a knee jerk anti-MS reaction. The inclusion of the System
library really ought to be completely superfluous on the client, and
may in fact be unnecessary. However, MS has found that many
developers liberally cut and paste from example code and including
that library smacks of the old "this web site is designed for, and
will only work on IE" even if other browsers are supported. Java
code also often includes a System library and it has always caused me
pain when my students include entire libraries that they haven't used
and thus create bloated, potentially unsecured byte code.

The biggest performance hit for JavaScript is dynamic typing, high
performance JIT or not. Once understood, the pitfalls of dynamic
typing can be avoided. I feel myself verging on a rant about the
state of Comp Sci education, so I won't digress.

>> Instead of using Microsoft's Volta, I would suggest using tools from
>> Google Code, http://code.google.com ,
> Google does have GWT, but the difference is that they have a very
> simple
> toolkit, not all of Java EE, which would be the analogue to
> Volta/.NET.
> Also Google lacks the very substantial IP in compiler technology that
> Microsoft has.

True, although I still prefer Intel's compiler to that of Visual
Studio. I have to concede that Google code may not have been the best
example of the alternatives. Their business model has, after all,
become more advertising focused.

>
>> or Yahoo's developer kits, http://developer.yahoo.com
> You mean Microsoft's. ;-)

Ha ha ha, I totally forgot about that acquisition - Point taken!

Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong
reasons.
~R. Buckminster Fuller

**** Use of advanced messaging technology does not imply ****
***** an endorsement of western industrial civilization *****

Marcus G. Daniels

Stating the obvious

Birchard Hayes wrote:
> The inclusion of the System
> library really ought to be completely superfluous on the client, and
> may in fact be unnecessary.
[..]
> The biggest performance hit for JavaScript is dynamic typing, high
> performance JIT or not.
Supposing for the moment that is so, it's consistent with the ASP.NET
strategy of
making the user experience the best for Windows users, and adequate for
everyone else.

Marcus

Birchard Hayes

Stating the obvious

On Feb 3, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Supposing for the moment that is so, it's consistent with the ASP.NET
> strategy of
> making the user experience the best for Windows users, and adequate
> for
> everyone else.

Agreed, but isn't that less than optimal?

Birch

Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong
reasons.
~R. Buckminster Fuller

**** Use of advanced messaging technology does not imply ****
***** an endorsement of western industrial civilization *****

Marcus G. Daniels

Stating the obvious

Birchard Hayes wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
>
>> Supposing for the moment that is so, it's consistent with the ASP.NET
>> strategy of
>> making the user experience the best for Windows users, and adequate
>> for
>> everyone else.
>>
>
> Agreed, but isn't that less than optimal?
>

Most people use Windows and many people hold Microsoft stock (e.g.
through their mutual funds), so I'd say consensus is that it's good.
It's a smart way for Microsoft to use leverage. It's ridiculous to
think that any company wouldn't.

Marcus