[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered

From: Kamen Yotov
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:37:08 -0400


I could not resist to get into this conversation.

I have been using .NET for quite some years now and I rely on the framework
for a big part of my research...
But why are you so concerned with Windows.Forms?
I think the first goal should be 100% implementation of the standard.
Windows.Forms, ADO, ASP.NET, etc. can be done later, if there is the need
for it!

Correct me if I am wrong.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Miguel de Icaza" <address@hidden>
To: "Thong (Tum) Nguyen" <address@hidden>
Cc: "'Norbert Bollow'" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>;
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 16:47
Subject: RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to
theUS-patent-endangered APIs?

> Hello,
> > >     Maybe you are not familiar with it, but take my word, it is
> > > radically different.  Both at the rendering level (Drawing) and at the
> > > toolkit level (Windows.Forms).
> > >
> >
> > I don't agree.  The drawing primitives are the same and all they've done
> > replaced handles with classes.  The API is actually identical to the 8
> > old WFC classes from J++.  It's the same non-MVC, ancient, outdated way
> > writing UIs.  Appropriate for quick drag and drop UIs while making it
> > difficult and inefficient to write anything more advanced.
> Again, I do not believe that *anything* on the framework above the ECMA
> standard is particularly new.  But singling out Windows.Forms over the
> rest because "its a thin wrapper" is intellectual dishonesty.
> The same can be said of pretty much everything else.
> And in any case, WFC from J++ was a Microsoft invention, not a public
> one.  Events and properties used in a toolkit is definitely taking
> advantage of a feature that never existed before in the Win32 API.
> Some things which are massive departures from Win32:
> * You do not have to do translate message/dispatch message.
> * You do not need a Wndproc method for each window class.
> * You do not have to register a window class.
> * The Win32 API is hidden for the most part, in fact, the gtk#
>   and pnet implementations are proofs that the API is sufficiently
>   different that it is far from a "thin wrapper".
> I dont think its patentable, but if you dont think this is, then
> nothing else is.   But being selective about what you consider to be
> thin-wrapper, and what you don't is just an exercise in  deception.
> Miguel.
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]