Replies

This is a response to your #395, which I did not see as I was writing my #394.

"Counter example:

Interoperability between applications on a single system. The Unix shell. From a simple shell script, I can call any other program written in any other language, and I can pipeline output from one to the other. Interoperability between applications on multiple platforms. XML, WSDL, SOAP, and UDDI."

On the Unix shell, even you mention that is not "cross-platform" so I'll leave your comment on that as is.

On XML, WSDL, SOAP, and UDDI, this is all XML and its related technologies which provides a very powerful, indeed revolutionary, alternative to other programming languages and, yes, it is truly cross-platform in its capabilities. But two points follow from identifying these XML-related technologies. First; IBM, Red Hat, and others are trying to limit the full use of XML Web Services (WSDL, SOAP, and UDDI come in here) by stressing RPC-style Web Services (limited in scope) as opposed to Document-Style (unlimited capabilities). IBM's WebSphere Application Server does not contain the JAXP Java API as a quick example and you will find no IBM tutorials on doing Document-Style web services at IBM's DeveloperWorks web site. It is .NET that is fully-enabling XML. XML is not a counter-example to .NET because the .NET APIs are actually XML schemas themselves.

But what about all the legacy code written in Java, RPG, Perl, COBOL, and many other languages that is still a fully-functional part of the business processes of many companies that is residing on their (non-Windows) servers? How can that application code be accessed across platforms without the construction of a specific application server whose installation is required on each separate machine? .NET provides the answer with its Common Language Runtime, OLE DB data providers, and XML-Schema-Based APIs.

.NET's solution not only maximizes the cross-platform potential of XML and XML Web Services - and your examples were meaningful in this respect - it also provides access to regular application code already installed and running on non-Windows platforms.

This is a quick followup to my post #397 and your posting of XML and its related technologies as a counter-example.

Since .NET relies upon APIs written as XML schemas I can concede that without XML there could be no .NET and, therefore, that XML is the original cross-platform technology that is revolutionizing cross-platform interoperability. Perhaps I should modify my statement to say that "Microsoft .NET is the most important development platform enabling cross-platform interoperability."

That would be more accurate and it would incorporate your counter-example as a useful and relevant rejoinder to my earlier statement.

Unfortunately, I have to leave so let's pick this up on monday (or via freepmail). I really am trying to understand what you are saying, but so far all I get out of it is that .NET runs on Windows and it makes it easier for a program on windows to call other processes.... and I fail to see the novelty and groundbreaking technology that supports the unqualified claim of having done more for interoperability than any other technology out there. As I noted, hundreds of thousands of Unix boxes can do the same without .NET, using a service oriented architecture. As windows would require the .NET framework, the Unix boxes would require equivalent (ie., a process that listens for the request, selects the appropriate service to satisfy the request, and provides a response.... that methodology, by the way, goes back to early days circa 1993).