From: Ellen K. 

I really like XML for exchanging data among applications etc, and contrary
to my normal stick-in-the-mud-ness I was the person who introduced it into
our production environment.   (I have to confess, the
reason was that there was no other user-proof way to pass more than one row
at a time to SQL Server.)  But I can't imagine trying to use a programming
language expressed in XML.  I hope you were making that part up.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:25:21 +0100, Adam Flinton
 wrote in message :

>Geo wrote:
>> "Adam"  wrote in message
>> news:4295bb77{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/26/dotnet_longhorn/
>>>
>>>"A security architecture touted as one of the core benefits of
>>>Microsoft's next major Windows upgrade look like being the next casualty
>>>of the Longhorn death march.
>>
>>
>> Ok so much for the db filesys and now this. What's left?
>>
>> I mean NT 3.5 brought more speed and reduced memory requirements, 3.51
>> brought fax and disk compression and a better set of drivers, 4.0 brought a
>> new UI and a new printing system, 2K brought a whole new domain model based
>> on DNS and share freedom from machine names. XP brought nothing worthwhile
>> that I could see and now it looks like longhorn may not either? (first the
>> dbfilesys got dropped and now the programming environment is iffy? what's
>> left?)
>>
>> Is this what happens when your geek filled development team quits and is
>> replaced by a bunch of Harvard grads?
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>>
>Well..
>
>All the stuff like indigo was apparantly pulled from the ecma/iso/.Net
>story coz MS woke up to the fact that then lots of others could use it
>to talk to their machines (e.g. Novell). Gosh it's almost like http/xml
>can be done by anything with an e-pulse....
>
>So there's one core lump which is going from being part of the .Net
>story (kinda like J2EE is to Java) to just built on .Net. It's a pity &
>it kind muddies the whole MS ECMA/ISO/.Net marketroid "play nice with
>others" story.
>
>So while you may get indigo (may but hopefully will) it will not be part
>of .Net (it's a bit like the way Apple has pulled various (esp media)
>things from being just there to being "special items" in 10.4)
>
>& so....well there's still avalon........& xaml....(pronounced by the
>.Net'ers I meet as Camel (I think they are taking the Greek Ch as in XP
>= Chi Rho).
>
>
>So......(& you & Tony are going to love this....) the big win is....you
>get to program Longhorn using.....using....using....XML!!!!
>
>Hurrah.
>
>I can just feel Tony cringe at the verbosity of a programming lang
>expressed in XML
>
> From what I can see.....it's a bit like using JSP'es using beans i.e.
>it stitches together prebuilt clr code.
>
>Of course given Rich S'es aversion to people using xml as a solution one
>would have to assume that this must be a crap idea.
>
>
>
>Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5