Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?

[Bill Lance]

--- Rhys Weatherley <address@hidden> wrote:
> Bill Lance wrote:
> 
>
> 
> > I can appreciate your aversion to the
> > commodity browser as an interface.  It is most
> > certainly less than ideal for any one particular
> > application use, but it does have the unique
> character
> > of being ubiquitous.
> 
> Being ubiquitous is part of the problem.  If all one
> has
> is a browser, everything looks like a Web page.  

That's a fact.  But perhaps the problem is not that it
is ubiquitous, but that it's designed to display web
pages.  There are certainly many limitations to the
http/html protocls.  But it was, and still reamins,
the first and most widely used examples of a
machine/OS indenpendent platform. (You already
mentioned Java's issues).  
The HTTP/HTML-Browser model shares the idea of a
Virtual Machine with Java, ICL and your own project. 
Although as a VM, the browser model falls way short of
what it could be, it's still the first real public
test of the idea.

And it is a resounding success in the true world
market of ideas.  



But
> the
> examples of instant messaging and Napster show that
> alternative client interfaces will be accepted by
> the
> public if they are thought out well.

Not to mention the online games like EverQuest.  I
firmly believe that these are going to give rise to
the first shared virual reality envieonements.  

> 
> However, we do need a strong platform underneath
> that makes writing such alternatives interfaces
> easier.
> Right now, a new native binary is needed for every
> new alternative.  That doesn't scale well.
> 

I agree totally.  There will still be a need for the
cient side program, however.  And the more of a
commodity that client side program, whatever it's
called, is, the better.


> Cheers,
> 
> Rhys.
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com