[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"

what is oodbc
Well er....

1. Those slides are a minimal skeleton designed to hold up an
    hour or so of verbiage.  Having said that, they're in a public
    place with my name on them so I guess I have to say whether I stand
    behind them or not.
2. I stand behind them.
3. I guess someone should expand them into a real essay with flesh
    between the bones.
4. The audience is a mainstream tech-conference audience - it's assumed
    that from their point of view a "successful" technology is one that
    shows up in their shop in mainstream applications.  Per that
    definition, SQL succeeded, OODBC not.  Java yes Ada no.  XML yes
    SGML no.  Et cetera.
5. The real point is that a bunch of things that ought to be predictors
    for technology success (thus defined) don't work very well.
6. I claim that hitting an 80/20 point is a strong predictor of
    success (positive and also negative in that technologies that don't
    hit it usually don't succeed), that there are a few less strong
    predictors (happy programmers, good early implementations, technical
    elegance), and that military backing is a weakish negative
7. For the weaker predictors, I acknowledge counterexamples.  I can't
    think of one, either positive or negative, for the 80/20 criterion.
8. As regards 4GLs, that's probably my fuzziest test case.  Someone
    pointed out correctly that the really commercially important
    outcome is VB.  But anyone who lived through the 4GL hype in the 80s
    (it basically amounted to "do away with programmers, and if you
    can't, do away with 'if' statements") tends to look back with a very
    jaundiced eye... and the Web seems to be giving poor old VB a tough
9. Simon suggested that XML was informed by HTML as much as by SGML.
    Don't think so; XML is a very pure SGML subset and I honestly can't
    think of any design components that came out of HTML.  (Out of the
    *Web*,  sure, e.g. compulsory URIs for all external references).
10. Several people have hurt feelings over my suggestion that SGML was
     not successful.  Perhaps my opinion is influenced by having on
     several occasions had to meet the payroll of a struggling SGML
     company out of my own pocket.  SGML "mattered" in the same sense
     that Robert Johnson and the Velvet Underground matter to popular
     music, but nobody bought their records and 99% of the programming
     profession ignored SGML.  Being important or mattering is not
     equivalent to success in the sense that trade-conference audiences
     think of it.
11. I've never heard a generalization about "SGML is better for X,
     XML for Y" that holds much water.  The most significant technical
     difference is that for SGML the rules say you have to read and
     believe the schema provided by the sender.  Given that a lot
     of successful SGML apps cheerfully broke that rule it's hard to
     lend it too much weight.

OK?  -Tim


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.