You've reached the internet home of Chris Sells, who has a long history as a contributing member of the Windows developer community. He enjoys long walks on the beach and various computer technologies.
Tuesday, Jun 25, 2002, 11:57 AM
XML & Inclusion
Here. "I just read your 'Object vs. XML' post on the spout and I'd be pleased if you would allow me to respond with my own personal spoutlet. Here goes:"
Tuesday, Jun 25, 2002, 1:46 AM
The New Don Box Home Page
Here. I think this one will stick for a while. : )
Tuesday, Jun 25, 2002, 12:00 AM in The Spout
XML & Inclusion
guest editorial by Don Box, Tue, Jun 25, 2002
Chris, I just read your "Object vs. XML" post on the spout and I'd be pleased if you would allow me to respond with my own personal spoutlet. Here goes:
For much of the 1990's, I spent a lot of time writing COM code in C++. The combination of C++'s static type system + COM's dynamic type system was a very powerful combination that I am proud to have been involved with, even though my contributions to COM were from afar as a non-Microsoftie.
In March of 1998, I had the pleasure of working on the initial SOAP protocol with Microsoft and Dave. That experience was a turning point for me, as it forced me to acknowledge type systems that were not part of the classic OO family that I had come to know as the "one true way."
Unlike COM or Java, XML tends to attract developers of every stripe, each of which has a wildly different sense of esthetics with respect to language design, data vs. processing model, structural vs. nominal typing, functional vs. declarative vs. imperative styles, etc.
Because XML's raison d'etre is interop, XML needs to be neutral with respect to these choices, otherwise, the barrier to entry becomes too excessive for some communities to participate. The current pushback against XML Schemas is a great example of this effect.
XML Schema imposes a type system over XML Infosets that is very similar to the OO type systems you are familiar with. This makes XML Schemas well-suited for importing directly into Java or C# programs.
Unfortunately, the XML Schema type system has features that don't make sense if your world doesn't revolve around named user-defined types (e.g., several script languages, SQL, etc.). For that reason, some members of the XML community has been lobbying for something with a looser type model than XML Schemas. Had the XML Schema working group made it clearer how to do this sort of thing with XML Schemas, I believe the time for adoption would be that much shorter.
Getting back to your original post, I find your characterization of my colleagues and I as "so steeped in the new world that they forget where they came from" a bit misleading.
As an XML guy, I try not to focus too much on where I came from. Rather, I try to bend over backwards to be respectful of where other people came from.
I don't want the guy writing ML code in Dayton, Ohio to shove his world view down my throat.
I'm trying hard to reciprocate by keeping my OO/C++/COM sensibilities in perspective.
XML is about inclusion.
It's the ultimate Rorschach test.
We all make it into what we need it to be.
That's the "secret sauce" that makes XML what it is.
Sunday, Jun 23, 2002, 2:06 PM
The Big Secret
Here. "An exclusive first look at Microsoft’s ambitious-and risky-plan to remake the personal computer to ensure security, privacy and intellectual property rights. Will you buy it?" By Steven Levy, Newsweek
Saturday, Jun 22, 2002, 11:20 PM
Object vs. XML
Here. "I was watching a group of folks present a new XML standard the other day and I realized something for the first time: to XML folk, OO languages are just script-like 'glue' for connecting XML processing steps, the "Unix pipe" of the new millennium, if you will. Integration with OO languages is necessary to enable XML dominance, but that's an accident of history. In the view of the XML zealot, OO will eventually fall away and only pure, clean XML will be left in it's place."
Saturday, Jun 22, 2002, 12:00 AM in The Spout
Object vs. XML
I was watching a group of folks present a new XML standard the other day and I realized something for the first time: to XML folk, OO languages are just script-like "glue" for connecting XML processing steps, the "Unix pipe" of the new millennium, if you will. Integration with OO languages is necessary to enable XML dominance, but that's an accident of history. In the view of the XML zealot, OO will eventually fall away and only pure, clean XML will be left in its place.
As an OO guy, I find this view disturbing. As a general technology wonk who sees the value of XML, I find this view unrealistic. Just so you XML folks know, OO guys look at XML as a data transfer syntax and that's all. OO guys are happy that XML is there, but they prefer to stay away from it in favor of their nice, familiar OO environment.
The problem, of course, is that many XML guys are so steeped in the new world that they forget where they came from. To paraphrase the Matrix, XML guys don't even see the angle brackets anymore -- they just see blonde, brunette, redhead. OO guys, of course, *only* see the angle brackets and prefer their artificial world-like simulation.
The result of this massive gap between XML and OO folks is that the great thing that the XML guys are building, i.e. a general-purpose hierarchical data manipulation, transformation and interoperation infrastructure, something that OO guys desperately need, is being lost because the two groups don't know how to communicate with each other.
So, to enable XML to dominate, XML folks have to be sneaky. Just like OO finally took off in C++ when it provided a super-set of the procedural programming in C, XML has to provide a super-set of OO programming, down to the easy syntax and the compile-time type checking. Only when you give the OO guys exactly what they already have can they begin to see what new things you've given them.
Thursday, Jun 20, 2002, 11:58 AM
Ventura Not Seeking Re-Election
Here. As a former MN resident, I'm very happy to report that Jessie "The Body" Ventura will not be running for another term as governor. I didn't have anything against Mr. Ventura because he was a wrestler -- my issue is that he's an idiot. I was embarrassed for the state of my birth that he won and I'm happy that he won't be a choice in the future.
Thursday, Jun 20, 2002, 10:35 AM in .NET
Under the Lid of Open Source .NET CLI Impls
Here. "Cross-platform .NET development is imminent, but the purpose, the feature set, and the platform support varies. We were curious about the development of the various open source implementations of Microsoft .NET's Common Language Runtime, so we talked to the key developers in charge of each of three CLI implementations—Mono, Rotor, and Portable .NET—to find out what exactly they've built, how they did it, and how they compare. What we found might surprise you."
Thursday, Jun 20, 2002, 3:12 AM in Tools
treecc -- Free Compiler Construction Tool for C#
Here. "The approach that we take with treecc is similar to that used by yacc. A simple rule-based language is devised that is used to describe the intended behaviour declaratively. Embedded code is used to provide the specific implementation details. A translator then converts the input into source code that can be compiled in the usual fashion."
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2002, 5:18 PM in .NET
Melbourne .NET User Group Hosts WDN RSS Feed
Here. "MDNUG would like to thank Chris Sells for making the RSS feed freely available to the masses. We're too slack to write our own."
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2002, 5:10 PM in .NET
VS.NET Google Search Macro
Here. Drew Marsh posted a VS.NET macro that will launch a search for selected text on Google.
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2002, 5:07 PM in .NET
Flat Controls for WinForms
Here. "Many people feel that flat UI look of web pages is desirable. Catering to this market, Ivar Lumi has written a library of flat controls. In the attached .zip file are flat DateTimePicker, EditBox, SpinEdit, ComboBox, ToolBar, Button, Label, CheckBox controls. Also included is an OutlookBar control."
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2002, 5:05 PM in .NET
WANTED! Starting Work on a Windows Forms Project?
Here. "Are you starting work on a Windows Forms project and need that extra jump start? The Windows Forms development team is hosting a hands-on development lab on the Microsoft campus for companies who are actively starting Windows Forms work. If you are about to start a Windows Forms project or recently started a project, please apply to attend."
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2002, 5:05 PM in .NET
A Windows Forms Application Desktop Toolbar
Here. "This sample demonstrates how to create a Windows Forms application that registers itself as a desktop toolbar. The behavior of your desktop toolbar can exactly mimic that of the Windows Taskbar."
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2002, 5:03 PM
NotifyIcon XP
Here. "Perfectly mimics the built-in NotifyIcon control, except this one supports Windows XP balloon tips."