Once again Webkit is teh win!
But with a tutor like Dave Hyatt how could it not?
Meanwhile Firefox is still stuck at 68/100, and well IE8… See me after class.
There’s a certain (large) segment of web developers who are feeling full of Schadenfreude at IE8’s (potential) troubles, and I must admit I myself am among them (see one of my previous posts). The upcoming free for all that will be IE8’s introduction will cause mass amounts of confusion (if current plans are carried out), but those of us who are forced to work in webdesign, figure that Microsoft has really just made it’s bed, and now it has to sleep in it.
Quickly now how many web browser can you name?
And that’s just off the top of my head… essentially there are for all intensive (math) purposes an infinite-1 number (∞-1) of web browsers, and for each web browser there’s been basically an infinite number of web pages designed and tested (∞). Using my horrible analysis of algorithm’s knowledge from Uni that works out at:
Ω(∞) * Ω(∞-1) = Ω(∞^2) = ∞
(and yes I realize I should use n instead of ∞, but it’s Ω notation ie. worst case)
That’s right, there’s an Order infinite number of combinations of web pages and browsers. Looking at the graphs in the Martian Headset article this is quickly apparent by the lines in the pictures. And since all the above browsers implement the same things slightly differently (there’s no compiler to tell you you’ve created a mal form web page). Granted a large fraction of the above web pages can be removed by attrition, as well as limited support of the differing web standards (html/xml/xhtml), but it doesn’t change the big-O Order (magnitude) of the problem.
So what to do? That’s the one point the Martian Headset post is short on… He spends hundreds of words re-iterating the problem, but without proposing a solution. Joel’s solution? Capitulate, and let the current broken standard of the web continue and fester.
The thing is that, as an IE 8 user he’s oblivious to the prejudices experienced by minority users. Like racism, it’s very hard for members of the majority to understand the pain that others in a minority experience (ok, racism might be a stretch, but point remains the same). Members of the majority can ignore problems, and trust that the might makes right argument will prevail with respect to web browsers and web standards. The problem here is that with IE and the last couple of versions, the mob has been heading for a cliff.
Again back to the Martian Headset post, Joel talks about how there’s no standard implementation and the standards documentation is difficult to follow. I’m not about to argue that the W3C documentation isn’t hard to follow, it is. But it’s complicated in the way that a legal contract is complicated: it eliminates all possible forms of wiggle room. And really that’s what a standards document is. It’s a contract that you have to follow if you want to properly implement something, the thing is there’s no penalty (besides marketshare) if you don’t follow it. And by standards documents standards it’s ridiculously easy to read. Compare it to the TCP/IP RFC (and that’s one of the simpler RFC’s out there). Standards documents aren’t designed for vanilla web developers. They’re designed for web browser developers.
The thing is that these browser developers are infact translating these documents into different standard implementations that other browser developers can compare their work to. The first big step in this direction was the old Netscape standard documentation – that was all but ignored by Microsoft, followed by the more recent Acid tests (Acid 1, Acid 2, Acid 3), and kudos to Microsoft, they’re following suit. This can only lead to good things, and don’t be fooled by 3 “small” acid tests vs. Microsoft’s 700 unit tests. The acid tests each have hundreds of sub tests, and only if they all run properly will you see the proper output.
There’s only so much bailing wire and bubble gum you can tack on before the thing is going to just fall apart. And the creaking you’re hearing is Windows.
Joel does a great job explaining what the issues are, and what the problems are as well as where we stand currently. He also briefly touches on stuff he’s talked about before, mainly why Windows 95 was so great (which coincidently just so happens to be when Joel of Joel on Software last worked for Microsoft). His argument is that basically 1/3rd of the code in windows 95 was compatibility stuff so that code that worked on older versions of windows still worked on windows 95. This includes code to make horrible horrible hacks that worked before still work on windows 95. His rant about the idealists and the pragmatists is basically re-iteration of this point.
And it’s a valid point. The reason Windows has dominated to this point is because what worked on windows 3.x, worked on windows 95, and what worked on windows 95 worked on XP. But things are starting to break down…
Eventually in all software you have to give up on what you had before and start fresh. Microsoft has so far managed to avoid this up to this point. Other manufacturers have already run smack dab into this problem. Apple ran afoul of this when they transitioned from OS9 to OSX, Linux hits this on a regular basis, but usually on a much smaller scale every time a new major revision of the kernel is released. The fact that Microsoft has managed to avoid this to this point is a testament to the people they’ve had working with them, but it’s become the expected behavior. And that behavior is going to come back and bite them in the ass.
When you do new things, you have to expect some of the old things not to work with your new things.
For all intensive purposes windows has become
on a highway of supercars.
There’s only so much bailing wire and bubble gum you can tack on before the thing is going to just fall apart. And the creaking you’re hearing is Windows.
Vista is a bastard child. Microsoft realized around windows 2000 that they needed to start fresh and crated a decent operating system, but due to marketing and time they had something that was windows XP underneath and all shiny on top.
To add all the new features they’re going to need for a next generation Operating system they’re going to have to start fresh.
Tabula Rasa (clean slate – not the video game)
With no back ties to previous cruft they can design features that are un-encumbered (new graphics layers, new file system layers, new registry stores, etc). This is also why Microsoft has been focusing on Virtualization technologies so much lately.
Once again Microsoft is cribbing Apple’s hard earned lessons. When Apple transitioned to OSX they added an emulation layer that allowed the modern operating system, to run the old broken OS9 inside it. It wasn’t perfect, and it allowed Adobe (one of their then premier partners) to be lazy and wait 2 years before issuing a new version of Photoshop for the new OS and the new Intel architecture, but it meant that almost all programs worked, (albeit slowly).
Once again to see the future of the windows platform you only need look as far as the closest mac.
The only possible way Microsoft has of preserving functionality with newer and newer versions of Windows it to emulate the previous versions. In the past that meant running code that had been designed to mimic older code, but windows has become so huge it’s become required that you run the entire operating system as a separate process in a separate emulated environment.
Microsoft is once again trying to shrink the foot print and the noticeably of virtualization with their new HyperV technology…. basically only emulating the parts of the operating system that a program accesses so that your program thinks it’s running inside windows 95, when it’s actually running on the latest and greatest version of windows, without spinning up a version of Windows 95 inside a VPC.
This is great, but it means in your next install of Windows, you’ll be installing every version before it (in a massive 40Gig or so install – at least that’s my guess of the what the final install will be), but storage is cheap. The question is will Microsoft charge you for the pleasure of running all their crappy old code?
So tonight I saw a presentation at the local .net user group meeting on Silverlight. And though it was ok, I figured I could prob do better for the people who were wondering what exactly Silverlight was…
So tonight I saw a presentation at the local .net user group meeting on Silverlight. And though it was ok, I figured I could prob do better for the people who were wondering what exactly Silverlight was, and since this meeting was one of the most packed user group meetings I’ve ever seen, I figured there might be a few of them.
To understand better we need to first look at the history of the web.
Let’s go back… Way back to the beginning.
In the beginning was the command line. But that really wasn’t that useful.
So one day at a place called CERN a guy called Tim Berners Lee (now Sir Tim Berners Lee) came up with this thing called Hyper Text to link together all the physics-y type information they had floating around at the particle accelerator.
For hyper text to work he developed a server that transferred these documents (the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) of a specific type (Hyper Text Markup Language). To serve the protocol he worked on the first web server program – called Mosaic. And to read the documents he came up with a Hyper Text Markup Language Browser also called…. wait for it… wait for it… Mosaic.
Lots of people noticed that the linked hyper text documents when you drew out the connections between them looked like a web. This web soon spanned physics departments around the world and the web became the world wide web. (www)… or a net…. an internet.
This idea took off in certain circles, but was limited. The software for it was licensed in a some what drackonian fashion, and so these other guys decided they could do it better. So they created a program called Netscape Navigator.
If you look at Netscape Navigator 1.0 today it’s pretty simple. All it can basically do is show you a document in plain black and white text along with links between pages (usually colored blue). The guys working on Netscape figured since they have to sell this better and it was taking off with others besides physics geeks that they needed to make it prettier, so they allowed you to also put images on web pages.
And thus the horror of web design was spawned.
Netscape continued to develop until version 3 when they hit the tipping point. Windows 3.1 and the then new Windows 95 exploded into peoples homes. People soon realized that they too could connect to the Web just like Universities had been doing for years. Soon regular Joes were surfing the web and making web pages, instead of just Physicists come Knights.
…. now hold on a second I’m going to completely change tracks for a second and we’ll come back to this point in history in a second….
With regular Joes making web pages, and surfing web pages it soon became apparent that you needed tools to make your web pages prettier than everyone else’s. And to do this Joe shmoe come new title of web developer needed publishing tools.
Up until this point there had been 2 companies making tidy fortunes developing software for magazine publishers to make magazines. Said companies: Corel who made Corel Draw (among other tools), and Adobe made this little program called Photoshop (among other tools).
Since then Corel has imploded while trying to diversify into the OS market with a crappy version of linux, and a deluded hardware expedition. Which means Adobe and Photoshop are responsible for Fark and icanhascheezburger, but they don’t really care since the retail MSRP for photoshop is close to $999.
But a funny thing happened in the graphics and publishing market… there was a dark horse, a third party, a company known as Macromedia.
Macromedia started back in the early 90’s with another name, and a program that made install shield type popup programs when you put a cd in the drive of a mac. But since it was a mac, it was more AV based. This program was what eventually became known as Shockwave.
(and my aside is done… for now… we’ll come back to it in a second)
So Netscape realized back in the days of Netscape 1.0 that they could never write code to display every type of file. They could do the big ones, like Jpeg, gif, txt, html. But there were a multitude of lesser known file types out there that they couldn’t write code to display, and if someone came up with a new file type they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it, after the code had shipped. So they single handily made tags that allowed you to embed other file types in your hyper text markup language pages. The embedded file would be downloaded by the browser and displayed by piece of code written by a third party, and if you didn’t have the piece of code that could display the file, the embed tag would also have information on where you could go to get it.
But Macromedia looked at the web and thought it was boooooring (animated gifs of dancing kittens aside) and decided to take their Shockwave product, rip out all the code parts of it, and turn it into a plugin for Netscape so that you could load images, play sounds, and do simple navigation. The web instantly became more interesting, but at the expense of not being able to navigate directly to content using the address bar, and the back button.
The act of making what we now know as Flash, also meant that control of making web pages left the physics geeks and the joe shmoes, and now moved directly into the hands of the designers who used to only do magazines, and video stuff on the Mac. The web instantly became more pretty, and the yellow and green text on a grey background webpage quickly died out.
The thing was that Macromedia didn’t have that many coding geeks, and mainly had these designers…. so the programs that created these new flash files were designed for people who worked visually, and didn’t know $hit about coding.
Okay…. back to the browser track….
By the time Netscape Navigator 3 arrived Microsoft realized they’d been missing out on this whole web thing and decided to release Internet Explorer…. and… it stank… It wasn’t just bad, it was horrible. Even giving IE 1.0 away for free, people weren’t using it and were buying Netscape Navigator instead. But Microsoft had cash to spare and decided to keep on trying. So they released Internet Explorer 2.0… and it didn’t suck as much, but it still sucked. So Microsoft decided to get desperate and pre-installed Internet Explorer 3.0 on windows 98. And it was alright…. (this is also yet another proof that Microsoft doesn’t make a decent product until version 3… or at least 3.1).
But Microsoft being Microsoft did things their own weird way (and also a way to destroy Netscape using the sheer numbers of IE installed on windows 98). Not wanting to use Netscape’s pluggin architecture, they decided to do their own plugins, using a different tag (unfortunately so we had to write code for both and use weird <object><embed></object> type syntax). To do this they resurrected the horror that only true old school vanilla C developers understand:COM via OLE and re-branded it as ActiveX. ActiveX didn’t fare too well though…. maybe it had something to do with the fact that if you used it, any old Tom, Dick, or Harry could create a web page that would completely delete your machine… if you were lucky… if you were unlucky it would steal your banking info.
By this time Netscape realized they were in trouble and quickly released Netscape 4. (and Netscape 4.1, Netscape 4.2, Netscape 4.3 and Netscape 4.4) and at this time they started to whine about standards since both browsers were now reading the same documents completely differently.
Microsoft’s response in the ultimate version of marketing one up manship was to change the name of IE 4 to IE 5 and continue to stomp out Netscape where ever they could find them. Now Netscape had had to give Netscape 4 away for free just to compete with Microsoft.
By this time the Netscape Browser core had become a nasty mess of hacks and problems. The once tidy, small, and most importantly fast, core had become bloated and unmanageable. Netscape decided to start Netscape 5 from scratch…. and in the process went completely belly up. But in a last desperate move before being bought out by AOL, they gave away all their source code…. The Mozilla Browser was born.
Sooooo lets recap…..
Microsoft destroys Netscape to rule the web,
Adobe Destroys Corel,
And Macromedia Flash commits fratracide on Shockwave to do all the fancy smancy websites,
Programmers get muscled out of the pretty parts of the web,
Designers make the web pretty, but don’t know how code,
pain and misery for all…..
But what the FUCK does this have to do with Silverlight you say?
Glad you asked… We’re done with (most of) the history now and we’re getting to it.
So without Corel to pick on any more, Adobe got fat and lazy (See Adobe PDF Reader for proof). But these Macromedia guys started to really take over in the design space. They had a slew of useful programs that were starting to infringe on Adobe’s profits. Tools like Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash were leaving the web and were starting to infringe on Photoshop and Illustrator.
Adobe’s response? make a better product? No.
Send in the lawyers, and start to work on something that could stop the Juggernaut that was Flash.
Since the days of Sir Tim, at the beginning of the web, almost all the images on the web had been encoded in little points of color. Jpegs, Gifs, and Pngs are all made up of points of colors, that when you zoom in on them become squares. The thing was that for stuff like pictures of text and line drawings it was actually more efficient to store the pictures as individual brush strokes or vectors than to store the all those points.
Flash had a huge advantage here since from the beginning they’d had this vector stuff. Online flash animations aren’t stored as pictures that are flipped though, but as individual sketches, that were moved specific amounts according to math (cartoon animators are even doing cartoons directly in flash these days). The problem only got worse as people started getting massive monitors. Pictures that had once taken up the entire screen now only covered a fraction of it, but when you blew those pictures up, they became blocky and impossible to discern details. Vectors didn’t have that problem because they were all instructions on how to move pens…. just up the pen size when you needed to make things bigger, and the edges were still smooth.
This Vector technology, as well as the ability to combine it with old fashion pictures is the graphics core of Flash, and Adobe wanted in.
So Adobe created a new file format, called SVG, that supported all the new buzzwords. Underneath it’s XML just like the web itself, so browsers should have been easily able to open and display it, and they gave away the specification on how to create and read these files, so that any coder could use it, but the best way to create these files was with Adobe tools.
Add a little animation and sound to this file format and you had the equivalent of early versions of Flash. And since it was text just like a webpage, anyone could read one, and create one. So that’s exactly what Adobe did. The best place to see SVG these days is in the icons on a linux system. They scale nicely from your cell phone’s 2 inch screen that’s running some stripped down version of linux, to the massive displays of the latest generation of desktop computers.
So what was Adobe to do?
The answer came only just (relatively)recently… they gave up on pimping SVG, and just bought out Macromedia instead. So now it’s not Macromedia Flash, it’s Adobe Flash.
But Adobe wasn’t alone in trying to kill off Flash. Microsoft had also been eying it. Flash has never played nice with browsers, and was taking over more and more of the web.
So Microsoft decided that flash had to die.
The Brutus of this assassination?…. his name is Silverlight.
Back after the disaster that had been Windows ME, Microsoft decided to completely re-write the core of their consumer Operating System. What eventually became XP started off as the core of Windows 2000. Looking at the technology to make a properly modular operating system, they decided to end the developer nightmare that had become known as DLL hell (a side effect of COM and ActiveX). The new technology to make sure all the back end plumbing of the new operating system didn’t self destruct was the underpinnings of what’s now known as .NET.
A large portion of the hydra known as .NET is really just the next version of ActiveX, which in turn is the latest version of OLE, which is the latest version of COM. But Microsoft finally got it right (Notice that we’re beyond the 3rd version????). Up until this point the best way to develop ActiveX and OLE was to use VisualBasic, but by this time Visual basic had accumulated more cruft than a prostitute at a bukakke convention. It didn’t help that Visual Basic wasn’t really considered a proper language anyways.
Seeing the number of changes that would be required for VB to work with this new OS back end of XP, Microsoft made a brave decision to start fresh. Tabula Rasa… They decided to completely over haul VB, and while they were at it the entire set of development technologies that powers windows. At this time Sun’s Java was making a big splash in academic circles, but let’s face it Sun didn’t have the 800lb gorilla that was Visual Studio, and the millions upon millions of windows business developers needed to create critical mass. Microsoft again decided to Destroy a potential rival, and the .NET programing suite was born. Allot of the .NET Runtime’s features are direct spin offs, or FU’s at Sun’s Java. Sure technically .NET was an ECMA standard that could run on any platform (a great out with anti-trust lawyers that after the whole Netscape thing were circling Microsoft like a pack of hungry Sharks), but they never expected some insane individual to actually go and do it.
Anyways after the launch of XP and .NET, microsoft realized they had a new very powerfull tool. .NET soon found its way into everything Microsoft touched. PDA’s run a very small version of .NET, and the latest PDA operating system developed by Microsoft was developed almost completely in .NET. Using the PDA code Microsoft also created a slew of new products. It’s an upgraded version of this compact runtime that runs the Xbox. It turns out the whole multi platform targetability of .NET was actually useful as opposed to an out with the lawyers.
By this time the line between a desktop program, and a web page had started to blur. Technically Microsoft started it, when they included a piece of ActiveX code with IE 3 that allowed the web page interface of Microsoft’s Email Server program Exchange to send data back and forth to the server without the user actually doing anything. This was an updated version of an idea the Netscape guys had had in Netscape 2, but had never put much effort into.
Smart people looking to recover after the 2001 .com bubble soon seized on this technology after Google used it to automatically update your inbox in Gmail. But it took someone with a touch of marketing savy to change the name that had been XMLHTTPRequest into the more palatable AJAX.
This blurring of the lines in programming scared Microsoft silly. The part of Microsoft that actually made windows, was only really operating at break even profitablity. The real money was in the Office Suite. But if people could run Office from web pages, Microsoft would loose it’s nice little monopoly. Without the need to run Office, people wouldn’t need Windows, and the river of money that Office generated would dry up.
That being said there were still a few places where web pages couldn’t compete. The interface was slightly klunky, and differences in browsers also meant that web pages usually looked slightly different on different web browsers. But when people combined the AJAX technology with Flash, you had a program/web page that behaved like a program, but didn’t require an installer, was always up to date, and was accessible from anywhere, all you needed was an internet connection. These new web applications known as Rich Internet Applications (RIA) were deemed the way of the future, and since Adobe wrote the code that displayed the graphics it always looked the same on any platform. Microsoft was loosing control and they were terrified.
So a few years ago (from today, early 2008) Microsoft began to line up Flash for a killshot.
Eventually rumors leaked out of Redmond that Microsoft was beginning to work on a Flash killer. It even got a code name: Sparkle. Though for the longest time that was all that anyone knew. Adobe/Macromedia didn’t take this sitting down. They’d picked up Allaire a few years before (mainly to kill the largest competitor for Dreamweaver at the time Homesite), but in the process also got a technology called ColdFusion. This had been the main competitor for ASP 1.0, but Microsoft had figured it defeated ages ago. Adobe/Macromedia leveraged this technology to create FLEX, a back end system for Flash that allowed the Flash RIAs to behave more like programs, with better data transmission systems back and forth from the servers, as well as the ability to operate offline.
The thing was, Flash had never been designed for this new programmability. Action script was and still is creaking at the seams as it desperately tries to hold together the logic that controls Flash Animations. The Designers didn’t really understand how to program it, and Programmers couldn’t stand the interface and design decisions that had been made for the Designers. As a result FLEX has kind of been a dud.
And it appeared that Microsoft was doing nothing. But deep within the bowels of Redmond, Microsoft was lining up the big guns to fire a broad side at Flash.
Oddly enough the underpinnings of this technology which we now call Silverlight started with the same concept as Adobe’s earlier efforts to confront Flash with SVG. Microsoft defined a new document format that looked almost exactly like SVG called XAML. Technically Microsoft says that XAML was developed for the new consumer operating system called Vista.
Modern operating systems are again suffering under the same strain as web pages, with respect to the massive disparity in size of monitors used to access them. A 32×32 pixel icon that had been an inch square on on Windows 95 was now only an 8th of an inch wide on the new 30 inch monitors, but the same code is expected to run on an Ipod like device where the entire screen is 3 inches across. Again vector based file systems came to the rescue of Vista… it allows for skinning applications and all the pretty ness of the OS.
Microsoft called this new graphics technology WPF (windows presentation foundation), to replace the GDI (Graphics Device Interface) that had been around since Windows 95. The thing was/is, Vista has kinda been a dud as well… It’s too bloated, too slow, and doesn’t offer enough over XP to really justify the insane upgrade price, let alone the confusion over which version to buy among the 28 SKUs.
As a kind of aside to the announcement of WPF Microsoft also mentioned it was working on an extension to it called WPF/E (Windows Presentation Framework/Everywhere). Lookup WPF/E in wikipedia and you get redirected to Silverlight’s page… this was the unveiling of Microsoft’s Flash killer… but like the flash of artillery being fired over the horizon, it’s very easy to over look what’s been unleashed.
So….. Time for another recap…..
Adobe becomes scared of Macromedia and Flash and introduces SVG,
Microsoft becomes scared of Macromedia, Flash, and the tech they introduced in IE 3,
Adobe tries to make a Flash competitor, thinks better of it, and decides to subsume Macromedia instead,
Microsoft has a version of cross platform Java that actually works from their (then) new operating system XP,
Microsoft decides to kill Macromedia Flash, now Adobe Flash.
But what exactly is Silverlight?
In simple terms, it’s a new XML based vector file format called XAML, that runs inside of a Plugin in your browser powered by a version the .NET compact framework… and that’s it.
Microsoft has stripped of the graphics sub system of the new Vista OS, packaged it so other operating systems can run it, or at least implement their own versions of the Vista graphics system in side a browser.
Ok…. so what’s with this Silverlight 1.0, Silverlight 1.1, and Silverlight 2.0 stuff?
Well Microsoft realized that they needed to get this stuff out, or vista would never launch, and also build some excitement among the developers, developers, developers. So Microsoft took the number one feature of flash currently, aped it, improved it slightly, and released what they had to excite people, and get the intended target audience of this new technology (in this case their standard ASP.NET developers, and Graphical Designers) to point them in the right direction so they could release a killer product. What was this killer feature they copied from Flash? (the developers link above is a hint).
It can be argued that Youtube couldn’t have existed without Flash. Real Networks had tried something similar, with their horrible Real Media plugin, and it’s Library Feature that linked to featured videos where they hoped they could force you to watch commericals back in 2000. Apple had also stumbled upon online Video back in 1998 with Quicktime, but had never tried to capitalize on it… (even though their trailers page on the Apple.com website was once one of the most highly trafficked sites on the Internet).
This is big news, but it’s no Killer app.
But a few weeks after they release Silverlight 1.0 they tell developers about Silverlight 1.1. They release a very early alpha of Silverlight 1.1 along with some tools for it and ask for feedback from the developers, developers, developers.
What is silverlight 1.1? It’s Silverlight 1.0 + a new version of the .NET compact framework.
That means you can write c#, vb.net, and .net language, even c++.net code to manage what you see inside your browser plugin on someones client machine.
This is what the fuss about Silverlight is about. It’s a true Flash Killer, as it has the graphical ability, small plugin size, and multi platform capabilities of flash, but it’s easy to program in (and it uses an existing knowledgebase) inside THE best development environment out there, Visual Studio.
The thing was that Silverlight 1.1 was a reaaaaaaallllly early alpha. There was no controls, no real gui tools for programmers or designers to work with when trying to interact with this programming back end. The implications of this are huge, as are the timelines before the final version is relased, and to reduce confusion between the two versions (as 1.0 is nothing like 1.1) they rename Silverlight 1.1 to Silverlight 2.0.
OK, cool, but why will this succeed when Adobe’s effort failed?
A) Microsoft is pimping it, and they’re not afraid to spend big time money to do so.
B) It has online video which was one of the major features that SVG lacked (mainly due to codec licensing issues)
C) Microsoft has also released tools to create content for it as well….
That last point is what would have me quaking in my boots right now if I was Adobe. To support Silverlight Microsoft has also released the Expression Suite. It includes several SKUs.
These aren’t just regular Microsoft creative tools either:
Just looking at these you can tell Microsoft is serious about competing with the Adobe CS suite. The interface is entirely different from all standard Microsoft Development technologies. These tools have been designed explicitly for Graphics Professionals, not developers who think they know design.
Granted that these are Microsoft version 1.0 products, but you can tell Microsoft isn’t messing around here.
Usualy I also like to point out things outside of the microsoft koolaid when looking at their new technologies. (Maybe it’s my contrarian nature). But it’s worth mentioning a few other points on why silverlight is so exciting.
As you can obviously tell, i’m excited about Silverlight, and after suffering though my tome here, i hope you are too.
Apparently my programmer personality type is:
You’re a Doer.
You are very quick at getting tasks done. You believe the outcome is the most important part of a task and the faster you can reach that outcome the better. After all, time is money.
You like coding at a Low level.
You’re from the old school of programming and believe that you should have an intimate relationship with the computer. You don’t mind juggling registers around and spending hours getting a 5% performance increase in an algorithm.
You work best in a Team.
A good group is better than the sum of it’s parts. The only thing better than a genius programmer is a cohesive group of genius programmers.
You are a Conservative programmer.
The less code you write, the less chance there is of it containing a bug. You write short and to the point code that gets the job done efficiently.
I’m slowly finishing the models of the pieces.
So… obviously I updated Word Press here on my blog (I hadn’t done it in quite a while) and so my template is slighlty screwed currently (As well as the white space in my previous entries).
Work related stuff has slacked off slightly, since we’ve launched the 2006 model year for volvo, but don’t worry more stuff is coming down the pipe line…. (stuff that didn’t quite make the update deadline)
Mom got her foot operated on… (while CONSIOUS!!!) she asked the anestesiologist to hold up her head to she could see them screwing the metal plate into her foot!!! (she did have an epidural… but still!!!)… It shouldn’t suprise me, Pops did the same thing when they cut his hand open to remove bone spurs…. “Ohhhh there’s the tendon…. neat!” *cringe* that’s what happens when you spend your professional careers training nurses and doing human A+P classes (Anatomy and Physiology… the class with the cadavers, but that’s another story for another time)
Also I’ve gotten the Honda VFR 750 up and running again. I haven’t registered it but did get a few rides in this past week end.
Tally so far:
Still to do:
Thats without registering it yet…., but I have to get it running. I’m planning to go for a LOOONNNGGG bike trip for my vacation at the end of August.
I think that’s every thing for now…
Oh wait there’s my software plans….
Edit: ARG… Word press isn’t recognizing the whitespace in my posts like it used to 🙁