On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> but I was thinking of something more mundane, like perl. In perl,
> which is untyped, you have to treat any value as if it were a
> string, float, or int, all at the same time. If the user wants
> to multiply by two, and then concatenate it to a str
OK, last word.
It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
> if you write a 3rd party tool
> to do interop, it's very hard to get the languages to help write your
> tool or keep it up to date.
Well, I sense a bit of the us-n-them perception that comes with
proprietary code. And of course, the whol
On 04-Jan-2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, there are languages with very different data models - Prolog, for
> > example.
>
> but I was thinking of something more mundane, like perl. In perl,
> which is untyped, you have to treat any value as if it were a
> string,
On 04-Jan-2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
> > If you develop super-SWIG for N languages, either it
> > (a) understands just one sort of "header file" (e.g. C header files)
> >and generates N different bindings
> > (b) u
It's been rumoured that Al Snell said:
> However, most programming languages deal with two basic kinds of
> abstraction: objects (which have identity) with methods and attributes, OR
> just a list of procedures, backed up by a library of types along the lines
> of:
>
> - Various sizes of signed
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> do so? This seems highly unlikely to me. First, there are social
> issues (try convincing a BSD user to use linux: the kernels are
> *almost* the same, and the libraries & apps really are the same).
It's the broken filesystem layout, generally sho
It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
>
> On 03-Jan-2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How does the 'class factory' get the 'meta-class description'?
> >
> > I know of only a few ways of getting the meta information:
> > -- use SWIG: it parses C header files and tries to g
On 03-Jan-2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's one technical feature of .NET that tends to get lost in the
> > spin. This might give you an idea of the level of interoperability
> > you can get. It's possible (indeed, it's simple) for a class written in
> > one language
It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
> One of MS's aims was "no more IDL".
OK,
I think I got it now: viz. basically, a super-duper SWIG.
http://www.swig.org
The 'right thing' to do in the free software world would be to
write a module for SWIG that auto-generates SOAP schema &
perform th
It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
> Personally I tend to think they are becoming an ASP, and they want to be
> the gatekeeper of all the cool services people will pay $14.95 a month to
> access.
I would second that notion.
> There's one technical feature of .NET that tends to get lost in
Never mind, I just answered my own question.
I just looked at the xml schema draft and realized they'd solved the
type issue there. So, to answer my own question, a new IDL langauge
is not needed, because xml schemas allow types to be specified.
This seems to be the important new feature that
It's been rumoured that Christopher Browne said:
>
> > Here's the question: if one writes a soap dtd/schema in the M$
> > framework, it will then auto-generate language bindings for several
> > languages? (i.e. they treat the soap dtd/schema as an IDL for
> > all practical purposes? OR did the
On 02-Jan-2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is way off-topic, but ...
>
> It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
> >
> > (Actually M$ has a lot more in the whole language infrastructure thing,
> > since their VM supports multiple language interoperation at the data
> > l
On 03-Jan-2001, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 14:50:24 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > This is way off-topic, but ...
> >
> > It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
> > >
> > > (Actually M$ has a lot more in the whole l
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 14:50:24 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This is way off-topic, but ...
>
> It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
> >
> > (Actually M$ has a lot more in the whole language infrastructure thing,
> > since their VM supports multiple language
This is way off-topic, but ...
It's been rumoured that Tyson Dowd said:
>
> (Actually M$ has a lot more in the whole language infrastructure thing,
> since their VM supports multiple language interoperation at the data
> level on the same machine -- no marshalling required.
Well, that's kind-o
16 matches
Mail list logo
