Me too. Who remembers using Kermit, Z-Modem, QWK mail, FidoNET and SLMR (Silly Little Mail Reader)?
Ahh, the heady pre-Web days... Chris Lofback Sr. Web Developer TRX Integration 28051 US 19 N., Ste. C Clearwater, FL 33761 www.trxi.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Yager, Brian T Contractor/Sverdrup > [mailto:brian.yager@;redstone.army.mil] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:36 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Urgent : GURU Required: Excel vs COM in CFMX > > > I actually miss BBS days :( (WWIV, VBBS, etc..) > > Brian Yager > President - North AL Cold Fusion Users Group > http://www.nacfug.com > Sr. Systems Analyst > Sverdrup/CIC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (256) 842-8342 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:info@;turnkey.to] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:40 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Urgent : GURU Required: Excel vs COM in CFMX > > > > Thursday, October 24, 2002, 12:23:04 PM, you wrote: > >>> Web Services != replacement for COM. > >>> > >>>Not by a long shot. > > > DW> It certainly works well as a replacement for DCOM; > while it might not > > DW> replace everything that COM does now, it can certainly > replace some of > > it. > > DW> SOAP, or something SOAP-like, could certainly replace a > lot of the > > rest of > > DW> COM; you just have to figure out what you'll use for > inter-process > > DW> communication. So, I'm not sure if it's really the long > shot that you > > think. > > > It's a physical impossibility to pass xml data as efficiently as > > passing data over a COM interface. I accept that SOAP is a viable > > replacement for DCOM, but not COM itself. > > > Especially when with all the "industries investment in Java" that is > > supposed to be a big reason we love Java now, nobody in Javaland has > > come up with as efficient an interface as MSXML. Just the thought of > > using a web service to parse/and receive/send XML is > laughable to me. > > It is the natural progression, however. Speed / Efficiency is > not the big > selling point of xml web services. They've been designed / > developed and > implemented with the reasonable assumption that speed will > continue to be > less and less an issue as time passes. In the past 50-60 > years speed, memory > and storage have all continued to become less and less an > issue in computing > and there's no reason to believe the same won't continue. In > a few years, > the fact that web services were slow in the now will be > completely moot. > What will remain ( after their speed is no longer an issue ) > is what they do > provide, which is ( from what I understand ) a more flexible > / dynamic and > easier to develop method of moving and transforming data / content and > separating it from format or platform. > > Case in point: Does anybody here particularly care that MS > Word 2000 would > be slow as hell on an old 286? ( That is assuming an old 286 > would even > support it. ) > > For that matter, I remember some machines with boot cycles of > 5 minutes or > longer from as shortly ago as 1995 and Windows 95. Or for that matter > waiting 30 minutes or an hour to download a reasonably small > file from a BBS > on my old monochrome DataGeneral and NEC laptops that I got > hand-me-downed > from my dad. > > Software is invariably developed "before its time"... That is > the nature of > the business ( or perhaps even human nature ) that innovation > occurs because > things that are not practical now are implemented now anyway > and then made > practical by further development because the innovators are > able to see the > potential. If everybody waited until everything were fast and > easy, nobody > would make any money and the industry would go nowhere. > Everyone would be > waiting on everyone else to produce something faster, more > efficient, etc. > But those things would never be developed because the > companies trying to > develop them would never have the money to develop and > produce them as a > result of never getting sales because their customers are > waiting for the > product to improve. > > This doesn't by any means indicate that everyone needs to be > a forerunner > and jump onto every new technology before it's practical -- > this would be > suicide. But those with the ability to work with a few new > technologies > before they are practical have the advantage of being early > and getting a > bigger piece of that new market. > > I often still wish the industry would evolve a bit slower > than it does, but > that's admittedly my own personal hangup, and it has more to do with > economic equality ( if there is such a thing ) and "the > digital divide" than > with anything else. > > </dissertation> > > > S. Isaac Dealey > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > www.turnkey.to > 954-776-0046 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
