ActiveX vs Java??
Random Access System Admin
I was just reading the magazine 'Internet' and I am wondering why the
papertrailers are comparing ActiveX ( a scripting language ) to Java,
which definately _isn't_ a scripting language ? Shouldn't they compare
it to JS ? Just thought I'd put up something to laugh about. ;)
R. Dows - mar...@randomc.com
Jim Cape
Random Access System Admin wrote:
>
> I was just reading the magazine 'Internet' and I am wondering why the
> papertrailers are comparing ActiveX ( a scripting language ) to Java,
> which definately _isn't_ a scripting language ? Shouldn't they compare
> it to JS ? Just thought I'd put up something to laugh about. ;)
ActiveX isn't a scripting language either. What they should be doing is
comparing ActiveX & NetscapeONE, or ActiveX & OpenDoc.
Jim Cape
Graphic Designer
mailto:ca...@ais.net
Zak
Random Access System Admin wrote:
>
> I was just reading the magazine 'Internet' and I am wondering why the
> papertrailers are comparing ActiveX ( a scripting language ) to Java,
> which definately _isn't_ a scripting language ? Shouldn't they compare
> it to JS ? Just thought I'd put up something to laugh about. ;)
>
There are several elements in Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX
technology. One element is VB Script which, as you mentioned, is
comparable to JavaScript. Another element is the ActiveX Control, which
is essentially the newest version of OCX/OLE, that can be embedded in a
web page and perform tasks at approximately the same level as a Java
applet. The bottom line is that ActiveX _could_ replace Java applets,
but it won't because it can't be implemented on many platforms (as I
understand it).
-Zak
a...@icm.com
In article <32AAAC...@cleo.bc.edu>,
Zak <mah...@cleo.bc.edu> wrote:
>
> There are several elements in Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX
> technology. One element is VB Script which, as you mentioned, is
> comparable to JavaScript. Another element is the ActiveX Control, which
> is essentially the newest version of OCX/OLE, that can be embedded in a
> web page and perform tasks at approximately the same level as a Java
> applet. The bottom line is that ActiveX _could_ replace Java applets,
> but it won't because it can't be implemented on many platforms (as I
> understand it).
With the greatest respect, this is all wrong. Activex/DCOM is a remote
object protocol which can be made to work with any software whatsoever,
including java and legacy systems that java tends to choke on without
a lot of help. VB script/jscript is completely
orthogonal and could be replaced with
something better (like http://www.python.org Python). DCOM/ActiveX
will be ported to all major platforms, it has been claimed and I believe.
The whole thing is under the Open Software Foundation and as such is
more open than java and a *whole* lot more open than javascript, which
doesn't even have licensable specs (from the available evidence there
may be no specs at all, since it appears to have been organically grown
in someone's back yard).
With ActiveX one can potentially dynamically
mix and match all sorts of software
components, both ancient and new, including mainframe legacy systems
and java applets -- much like the MS ODBC standard successfully
provided a uniform interface to multiple database systems. I think it's
all very exciting and useful, and if it comes from Microsoft, who cares?
Even if they somehow hijack it back into proprietary space, this is no
worse than what Netscape did from the start, so how can anyone on
the javascript list possibly complain about it?
Nevertheless, the control/download security model is flawed, as many
correctly point out. A close look reveals this is a very tiny part of
the
whole package.
-- Aaron Watters
===
Let he who is without sin caste the first stone...
(ah, mom, sometimes you really really piss me off!)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Will Dieterich
In article <8502270...@dejanews.com>, <a...@icm.com> wrote:
>In article <32AAAC...@cleo.bc.edu>,
> Zak <mah...@cleo.bc.edu> wrote:
>>
> There are several elements in Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX
>> technology. One element is VB Script which, as you mentioned, is
> comparable to JavaScript. Another element is the ActiveX Control, which
>> is essentially the newest version of OCX/OLE, that can be embedded in a
> web page and perform tasks at approximately the same level as a Java
>> applet. The bottom line is that ActiveX _could_ replace Java applets,
>> but it won't because it can't be implemented on many platforms (as I
>> understand it).
>With the greatest respect, this is all wrong. Activex/DCOM is a remote
>object protocol which can be made to work with any software whatsoever,
including java and legacy systems that java tends to choke on without
>a lot of help. VB script/jscript is completely
>orthogonal and could be replaced with
something better (like http://www.python.org Python). DCOM/ActiveX
>will be ported to all major platforms, it has been claimed and I believe.
Microsoft still has to release a lot of specs. before it will be fully
ported to major platforms, but that still does not give legacy systems activex
capability. Also a person ,to use activex, must write a native version for
each platform, so if you want everyone to use your activex
program you will need to write a version for mac/windows/various version of
unix, etc of couse that really defeats the purpose of the inter/intranet.
The only solution to having to write 20 or 30 versions of the software would
be write the software in java, and make that an activex program. Now you
would have to be really brain-dead stupid to do that. Of couse you can do
the thing microsoft want you do, and only write a version for the newest
version of ms-windows.
--
William Dieterich Call Sign: KD4LZE Email: wdie...@rmi.net
"As the flowers are all made sweeter by the sunshine and the dew, so this
old world is made better by the lives of folks like you" inscription on the
tombstone of Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame.
a...@icm.com
In article <58kpjd$n...@natasha.rmii.com>,
wdie...@rmi.net (Will Dieterich) wrote:
> Microsoft still has to release a lot of specs. before it will be fully
> ported to major platforms, but that still does not give legacy systems activex
> capability. Also a person ,to use activex, must write a native version for
> each platform, so if you want everyone to use your activex
> program you will need to write a version for mac/windows/various version of
> unix, etc of couse that really defeats the purpose of the inter/intranet.
> The only solution to having to write 20 or 30 versions of the software would
> be write the software in java, and make that an activex program. Now you
> would have to be really brain-dead stupid to do that. Of couse you can do
> the thing microsoft want you do, and only write a version for the newest
> version of ms-windows.
There is some validity to this, but it seems to presuppose that jave
programs
are actually portable...
Also, I see no difference between porting awt (a
horrible interface) to 46 platforms and porting a nice set of controls to
46
platforms -- except that the latter is easier to extend with new and
better
functionality. Once the controls are in place, in principle all the
programs
using those controls should be portable -- and if they are written in
java
or Python or maybe rexx or perl or scheme, they won't even need to be
recompiled.... and wouldn't it be nice to have a choice?
Basically I like the modular dcom/activex approach over the
"just java java java" monolithic approach, and I think the folks with
the bucks will like it too, mainly because it gives them more
flexibility,
supports legacy systems and existing investments better, and it just
happens to work with a whole bunch of killer existing software right
now. I suspect it'll also be a lot of fun to play with, and "programmers
just want to have fun" (at least in my case).
-- Aaron Watters
===
Donncha Redmond
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:51:13 -0600, a...@icm.com wrote:
: > In article <32AAAC...@cleo.bc.edu>,
: > Zak <mah...@cleo.bc.edu> wrote:
: > >
: > > There are several elements in Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX
: > > technology. One element is VB Script which, as you mentioned, is
: > > comparable to JavaScript. Another element is the ActiveX Control, which
: > > is essentially the newest version of OCX/OLE, that can be embedded in a
: > > web page and perform tasks at approximately the same level as a Java
: > > applet. The bottom line is that ActiveX _could_ replace Java applets,
: > > but it won't because it can't be implemented on many platforms (as I
: > > understand it).
: >
: > With the greatest respect, this is all wrong. Activex/DCOM is a remote
: > object protocol which can be made to work with any software whatsoever,
: > including java and legacy systems that java tends to choke on without
: > a lot of help. VB script/jscript is completely
: > orthogonal and could be replaced with
: > something better (like http://www.python.org Python). DCOM/ActiveX
: > will be ported to all major platforms, it has been claimed and I believe.
DCOM/ActiveX is another botched attempt by Microsoft to capture a market
that they were late coming to. You are correct to say that it is a remote
object protocol, but it is greatly overshadowed by the CORBA standard which
is truly open. The leading implementation of this standard is Orbix
(www.iona.com) which is already available on 20 platforms and can be
integrated with Java and Opendoc to provide a true object methodology.
However, in traditional Microsoft style they did not think of this market
and when they saw that it might threaten them they decided to root through
the cupboard and see what they could dress up. That is what DCOM/ActiveX
is.