But hold on. We already agree that such an API should look 1:1 like the
protocol. Its not as if the API, even if implemented as a blind-fold
experiment, by different groups with no contact, in different languages, is
going to look radically different. The protocol XML itself is already the
language neutral spec.

BTW. I think MS has seen the light on functional languages, faster than
most.

On 23/08/07, Michael Arnoldus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Den 23/08/2007 kl. 11.27 skrev Robert Greig:
>
> > On 23/08/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> One thing that seems to have come up a few times, is the idea that
> >> it would
> >> be hard to have the same API across different languages. I don't
> >> think it
> >> would be technically hard to do this.
> >
> > Yes, plus it's practically hard given other factors involved. Even OO
> > languages have different conventions - witness the rather clunky
> > result of transliterating the Java client into .NET.
> >
> > To my mind, having idiomatic clients in each language is going to
> > result in a far better experience for those developers.
> >
> > RG
>
> I agree - and again agree totally!!!
>
> As an open source thing I would expect the primary adoption of AMQP
> to come from the developers doing the work. They will choose to use
> AMQP if they get something they feel take care of their requirements
> and is easy to start using. Some API that might be standard in some
> OO specific way might look ridiculous in another language than the
> one providing the original design perspective - and the resistance to
> adoption will increase - or somebdy working in another language will
> write their own API on top of the standardized one and everybody will
> use that - in which case we end up the same place.
>
> And BTW - I strongly oppose the OO is everything view put forward in
> the previous suggestion. Even MS has started to see the light :-)
>
> Check out http://blogs.msdn.com/charlie/archive/2007/01/26/anders-
> hejlsberg-on-linq-and-functional-programming.aspx
>
> Michael Arnoldus
>
>

Reply via email to