http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660> market SL as cross-platform. Only fanboys buy that it's available for Win, OS X, WP7 from MS and for other platforms in the form of Moonlight. if only fanboys can see these facts, so be it. but that's beside the point. I'd be calling for a brave effort on the side of MS to get beyond that, standardize, open up, and make SL an alternative platform. not only for people who are to stupid to code html, as you make it sound, but also for those who need to build more complex stuff than the average web developer can even imagine in a limited timeframe. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment75http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment75Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:24:07 GMTStefan, you brought up an interesting point, ActiveX. I see many similarities between ActiveX and Silverlight. The main one, is that with both, Microsoft is tempting developers who think web development is too hard. With both, microsoft is saying: use your current skill-set. Yes, there are differences. The main one I think is that Microsoft "learned" from it's activex failure and market SL as cross-platform. Only fanboys buy that, i see it as a bait. Also there are some security differences. Don't misunderstand me. Silverlight is great technology. But it's not s standard, not open, and not cross-platform. I think it will be someday. MSFT has no choice. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment74http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment74Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:39:14 GMTwhat if MS bought FB and re-implemented it using ActiveX? FB is not suited for SL at all. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment73http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment73Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:58:35 GMTSilverlight fanbs, how about this scenario: MSFT buys Facebook, put Silverlight in Facebook pages. [BTW, this almost happened, IMO, with Yahoo] To me that would be a nightmare! Some fanbs are saying Silverlight is for apps/LOB, and in contrast HTML is for pages. Would FB be an app or not? Discuss pls -meni, open-standards fanboi http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment72http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment72Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:20:25 GMTSilverlight is ideal for internal LOB apps. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment71http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment71Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:39:06 GMTthis boils down to a preference between static and dynamic typing, flexibilty vs. compile time safety. if that's what you want, _and_ you want to address different SL/ML versions with different features, SL + C# is hardly for you. SL+Iron* might be. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment70http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment70Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:04:55 GMT@Stefan >>but the point is that unlike web sites, an app is something that should be tested in every configuration, so it's probably not a bad idea to build different versions at all. littering user agent checks across an entire app is a much worse idea than doing this on a web site. Building different versions for each configuration is an admin, deployment and versioning burden which is why its avoided if possible. With web applications you are running and testing the same website, there is one url, one version. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment69http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment69Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:28:26 GMT@Demis "You can't do that with Silverlight, if you don't write for the minimum base-line it won't run." not true. if you use a static language like c#, it's more difficult. the best way might be to use conditional compilation and build two versions, but there are other ways too. and there's room for improvement, things that MS could do if SL should become a standard that they then extend. you could also use a dynamic language in SL. but the point is that unlike web sites, an app is something that should be tested in every configuration, so it's probably not a bad idea to build different versions at all. littering user agent checks across an entire app is a much worse idea than doing this on a web site. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment68http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment68Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:18:29 GMTDemis, "I'm not anti Microsoft, I'm anti their NIH approach to creating new technology." Amen to that! Also, Microsoft is bound to make a dotnet copy of everything Google is doing. For example GWT and AppEngine. Not only that but all the many fine open-source libraries of Java. Oh, the effort! And it's going to be a few years behind. RE Microsoft, here is an excerpt from a blog post at msdn: 1) The cloud creates opportunities and responsibilities 2) The cloud learns and helps you learn, decide and take action 3) The cloud enhances your social and professional interactions 4) The cloud wants smarter devices 5) The cloud drives server advances that drive the cloud WTF? Had i been working with Microsoft technologies I'd really start to worry. Morons at the helm. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment67http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment67Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:25:18 GMT@Stefan >>your argument is the same as saying that you cannot create cross-plattorm apps in HTML because IE is always behind. Not the same thing, you can provide enhanced functionality to advanced browsers that support it whilst degrading gracefully for older ones. You can't do that with Silverlight, if you don't write for the minimum base-line it won't run. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment66http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment66Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:14:30 GMT@Stefan >> If you accept SL as a web plattform, you can handle it like a browser. just point the runtime to a URL, execute the app, done. no restrictions, just like HTML, but without the disadvantages of a decades-old design-by-committee mix-of-technologies platform that was always intended to create content, not apps. Yeah and then you're back to running it as a plug-in again, watching the loading sprite waiting for it to load, running an application inside and application changing how its parent is supposed to run, and all the other fun quirks I talked about earlier. Yeah its not like HTML doesn't load or behave like it, it's only similarity is that it uses XML for its UI markup. Even with the benefit of hindsight Microsoft isn't able to match the simplicity, expressiveness and power of CSS. And that 'decades-old design-by-committee mix-of-technologies platform' is responsible for the most successful phenomena in technology known to date. >>also, once we get over the mono-hating and accept moonlight as a viable player No one's mono hating, my entire open source web services stack ( [http://www.servicestack.net](http://www.servicestack.net)) runs on Mono, hell it even runs on MonoTouch ( [http://www.servicestack.net](http://www.servicestack.net)/mythz_blog/?p=417) -. Those guys are cool. >>it's really not that hard to imagine once you get over the bah! microsoft, and bah! plugin reactions and actually _try_ to think ways that would make SL a good option. I'm not anti Microsoft, I'm anti their NIH approach to creating new technology. Rather than provide enhanced solutions to enhance what's already out there they choose to re-write and provide a supplementary implementation. I would much rather they focused on bringing C# in the browser then creating yet another RIA plug-in and lock people into their world. It's another example of their all-or-nothing solution which is reminiscent of their approach with SOAP where rather than embrace HTTP and its REST-ful architecture they focused on creating a complicated specification that routes everything through HTTP POST controlling the entire software stack whilst at the same time giving up a lot of advantages inherent in HTTP ( [http://www.servicestack.net/mythz_blog/?p=154](http://www.servicestack.net/mythz_blog/?p=154)). Eventually I believe simplicity and power will win, which is why I think most web services created and published today are not SOAP-based. I would agree that Silverlight OOB is a great choice for a light-weight managed cross-platform Desktop. Although as you might have noticed I don't agree with it as a plug-in, I have my reasons for disliking it - others may have equal reasons to prefer it. >>java on the client is dead, for whatever reason. i guess the UI libs sucked, but it really doesn't matter. flash is proprietary only. no way it will ever be available on every platform/device. SL could be via moonlight. Qt needs native compilation. does not compete in this game. Although I've never been a fan of Java UI, its a memory hog, it been responsible for some of the most sophisticated cross-platform applications to date in Eclipse and IDEAJ (and all other Jet Brains IDE's). Adobe makes Flash and Air players available for Windows, OSX and Linux and Android today there's even an open source implementation ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash)). The flash packager for iPhone also enables flash application to run on the iPhone. There's even an open-source flash player that plays flash .swfs using pure javascript and SVG (No flash player required: [http://paulirish.com/work/gordon/demos/](http://paulirish.com/work/gordon/demos/)). It has much better cross-platform support than Silverlight. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment65http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment65Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:04:35 GMTif you want to address linux, restrict yourself to the current feature set of moonlight. it's really that simple. also, a generally acceppted plattform based on SL technologies would have to be based on this same common ground and be fully covered by the OSP or similar. your argument is the same as saying that you cannot create cross-plattorm apps in HTML because IE is always behind. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment64http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment64Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:25:11 GMTUntil Moonlight releases on the same timelime as Microsoft does, it's not a viable option. Right now it supports SL2, but most Silverlight development is done in SL3 and SL4. So how do you deploy your silverlight app to Linux users? Publish the application through Citrix? Why not just use HTML and have it work to begin with? http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment63http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment63Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:01:26 GMT@Steve Gentile: 100% agree about Script# not being a technology to bet the farm on. interesting though that they built office web apps using this... yes, please microsoft, open source that! as for plugins: read [http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/May-03.html](http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/May-03.html) many things are possible. it just takes some thinking outside the box. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment62http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment62Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:56:48 GMT@Meni i already mentioned Moonlight and the OSP. either you're not aware, or you chose to ignore it. fine. I don't know why my options are your nightmare. obviously to a large part of the HTML-crowd, other people's choices are evil. you wouldn't have to use it. BTW, I don't care about multimedia codecs or anything in this context. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment61http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment61Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:53:44 GMT@Steve, it's funny I remind you of your past self, but even 10 yrs ago I thought ActiveX was crap. I really don't understand how you can compare them. SL is available as Moonlight, patents for large parts are open via the OSP, and before anybody reminds me that XAML and other things are not: yes of course, if SL was to become a major web platform, MS would have to put everything under OSP that would be part of that package. also, once we get over the mono-hating and accept moonlight as a viable player, it could easily innovate on it's own. it's really not that hard to imagine once you get over the bah! microsoft, and bah! plugin reactions and actually _try_ to think ways that would make SL a good option. but all of this is theory, MS is not behind it. miguel de icaza tried a bit, but the response was less then enthusiastic and I guess that's it. About as useful to think about that as it is to think about why java didn't make it on the client. just didn't. it's a pity though. so we can either build SL plugin/OOB apps and hope that MS doesn't grow tired of supporting it, or build our apps using HTML. of flash, or native apps for that matter. the future sucks. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment60http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment60Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:50:26 GMT@Demis, you can consider this out of scope, but that's where the fun is. If you accept SL as a web plattform, you can handle it like a browser. just point the runtime to a URL, execute the app, done. no restrictions, just like HTML, but without the disadvantages of a decades-old design-by-committee mix-of-technologies platform that was always intended to create content, not apps. java on the client is dead, for whatever reason. i guess the UI libs sucked, but it really doesn't matter. flash is proprietary only. no way it will ever be available on every platform/device. SL could be via moonlight. Qt needs native compilation. does not compete in this game. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment59http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment59Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:43:54 GMTSteve, To be fair, given that most ActiveX was C++ apps, I would choose HTML over that in a heartbeat, too http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment58http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment58Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:12:43 GMTSteve, SL certainly run on Linux. That is what Moonlight is all about http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment57http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment57Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:07:12 GMTSilverlight isn't cross browser. We see behavior differences between Firefox and IE just on Windows. There are notable differences with Mac. and it doesn't run on Linux. HTML does, that's why HTML works. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment56http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment56Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:45:44 GMTThis SL app we're building is data entry. There's nothing we are doing that really . The most complicated javascript type thing would have been the menu and maybe some calendar controls. Stefan, It's funny, but you remind me of myself 10 years ago. I used to defend ActiveX, but you know looking back it was a bad choice... just like Silverlight is for building business apps. Use Silverlight for streaming video, that's what it is good at. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment55http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment55Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:44:18 GMT@Stefan Wenig Yeah there may have been some confusion, I was only ever talking about web apps vs Flash/Silverlight plugins. I consider Out-of-browser Silverlight to be more a Desktop application UI framework which in this space also competes with Adobe Air, Java UI (Swing & SWT/RCP) and QT cross-platform UI frameworks. If you need Desktop-like features that doesn't need access to native libraries then Silverlight is a good solution - I don't think this was the topic here though. A further question would be why Silverlight over WPF (if you only needs to run on Windows)? But that's a discussion for another post. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment54http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment54Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:43:49 GMTStefan Wenig, from your comments, i get a sense that you are dreaming of a future full of SL. Meaning more jobs, more apps, and higher market share for the plugin, say 95%, (screw those 5%, they should get Win :-) unfortunately, your dream is my nightmare :-) One more thing. You may buy the "SL is cross-browser" spill from msft. I certainly don't. I'm older. Did you know that there was an IE for the Mac? Did you know that there was even IE for Unix? I'll let you find more examples. MSFT does things only for their interest. Many companies do, and usually it's OK. But consider: 1) What Google contributed as open source cannot be taken away 2) When you talk about communication technologies, i.e. protocols, image formats, multimedia formats, etc. these shuld be open. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment53http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment53Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:37:27 GMTSeems we have digressed. However, could of notes from above: 1. Script# - great work - but just a technical note - it's not currently sponsored by Microsoft. It's created by an employee of Microsoft. Also, it's not currently open source -although I saw a note that in the roadmap the intent is open source. Great stuff, but honestly, I'm very nervous about structuring my client's bread and butter applications in this regards. If it goes open source, or get's support, etc... then certainly it makes for a more viable option. I think it makes it harder to justify. 2. I don't mind an 'out of browser' Silverlight application. That tends to blur the lines where the user isn't in a browser, it's more of a 'slim WPF' with smaller footprint. That part - I actually think is pretty cool. AIR was mentioned - and AIR to me has the same more acceptable approach as a Silverlight OOB. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment52http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment52Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:11:52 GMTForgive me for not always re-reading the entire thread and just answering one post at a time. I was explicitly not defending the role of SL as a plugin. I regret that the Web seems to be damned to be a place where nothing but HTML et al is allowed to live, but I explicity pointed to other options, such as OOB or integrating CLI/SL with the browser in a deeper way. (The key is they'd eventually have to be standardized.) If you ignore this and repeat that the most important thing for LoB apps is to support the back button, and these things are never any extra work, we'll have a hard time having a productive conversation. If you actually think that building large LoB apps using HTML is as simple as doing it using SL or WPF (can't speak for Flex), we just have different opinions. No way we'll sort that that in a online discussion. But you might just think that some apps just shouln't be in the web? That's exactly the problem that arises from the web being limited to HTML: incompatible proprietary technology islands are created to solve the deficiencies of HTML, both in terms of what you can do and the developer experience. If the web would open up, allow for some competition again, standardize later, we could actually have progress without these. Other people think that WPF & Co are just lock-in technologies (I agree) and we should therefore just surrender to HTML (I don't). http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment51http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment51Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:49 GMT>> Ummm, that makes sense for all websites / web applications. That quote is referring to how web sites or applications on the web should work. If you're developing an application that runs in the browser you shouldn't break well-understood conventions and metaphors (which most plug-ins embedded in web pages do). I didn't say not to develop desktop applications or that all applications should be websites. Infact that's one of the only niches in which I said Silverlight makes sense. >> no need to get all defensive over not being in the LoB business, or insulting for that matter. That's the thing, A significant part of my career is a back-end systems developer developing internal business apps using WinForms/WPF/Flex apps as well as Websites. I naturally take offence to that my pro-web stance is confused with a lack of experience building LOB apps. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment50http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment50Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:48:45 GMThighlighting is off, quote: > Ummm, that makes sense for all websites / web applications. so you claim that what you prefer is the only right way, not just for the kind of things you've actually built yourself, but for anything. the arguments you present are correct in a certain context, but don't relate to the stuff some other people are doing every day, or to the problems they are facing. simple as that. no need to get all defensive over not being in the LoB business, or insulting for that matter. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment49http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment49Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:32:44 GMT>>I was just saying that you're using the web for different things than you're trying to get me to do Please highlight where I have ever tried to get you to do anything? Agreed, lets end it. There's no meaningful discussion to be had with your straw-man arguments and opinions on my world views. The so-called outburst eventuated when you stopped talking about anything remotely tangible and decided to highlight that my writing was the result of my lack of accomplishments in the topic of discussion. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment48http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment48Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:18:43 GMTThat's exactly the kind of bullying that RIA supporters seem to have given in to, btw. Everyone thinks HTML is the future? Well, let's not bet on anything else then. They are so loud, they will eventually win. Why does nobody start with the question "do I actually want HTML to be the (only) future?" Or, "do I really want to implement that 500 page customer specification using javascript?" Well, shame on us then. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment47http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment47Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:11:03 GMTI was just saying that you're using the web for different things than you're trying to get me to do. If that's enough to cause an outburst of bad behavior, then this discussion is over. http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment46http://ayende.com/4634/on-silverlight#comment46Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:06:11 GMT