Re: Because victory wasn't achievable to begin with

Marc Clifton wrote:

>...
> 
> First, the idea that there is anything to claim victory over regarding the
> "pure" XUL concept is a fallacy.  Let's look at XUL from the perspective of
> the typical programmer.  Where is the form designer to compete with Visual
> Studio? 

If there were a single XUL standard then IDE developers would be 
motivated to create forms designers for it?

> ... Where is support for MFC? 

What does that mean? Why would I want MFC in a cross-platform GUI?

> ... Where is the support for COM? 

If you want that, you can have it: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xpcom/

> ...
> Second, where is the security?  At least Microsoft is addressing the issue
> of security with the concept of a binary markup.

It does not make sense to conflate "security" with "binary". I won't 
bother addressing this point because it is nonsensical.

> ...
> Third, what about performance?  Runtime parsing is a lot slower than compile
> time GUI generation.

And runtime conversion to native code is a lot slower than compile time 
conversion but that's the direction Microsoft is going with C#. Once 
again, I think that this concern is misplaced. Firefox and Thunderbird 
show that XUL interfaces are quite performant.

> Fourth, what about licensing?  A lot of these XUL parsers are GPL licensed
> (including my own).  Very few people want to touch a GPL project.  MySQL got
> it right when they offered a license for closed source commercial
> application distribution.  How many of the other XUL creators provide that
> option?

ActiveState has built a proprietary application on Mozilla's XUL.

> Fifth, where are the XUL parsers that work with C++?  Of the list that I've
> seen Gerald post, I haven't seen one!  Am I missing something here?  Is the
> XUL community like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand on the Java
> beach, ignoring every other important language out there?

Mozilla is all C++.

> Sixth, until .NET came along with reflection, writing an XUL parser was a
> PITA.  Any custom COM object, plug in, component, heck, even any custom
> classes you wrote in your application would need some form of customization
> in the parser to extend it. 

XBL.

>...
> I could probably go on.  I'll stop now.  I'd be very interested to read the
> feedback, because if anything, it's clear to me that XUL could never have
> achieved victory, whether Microsoft was around or not.  It took .NET's
> reflection to make it truly useable.

You haven't made that case at all. I don't see any logic in that 
argument at all. Do you think that .NET is the only way to do dynamic 
loading? And what is it about .NET reflection that is so much more 
interesting than either Java or Active-X reflection?

  Paul Prescod




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click