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

Re: Why XML for Messaging?

• To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:14:52 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <429ED466.2000409@m...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FA3@h...> <200506020736.31617.david.lyon@c...> <429ED466.2000409@m...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 5:41 am, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> I've seen no evidence of XML becoming slower over time. (Note the
> comparative.) On the contrary, both Moore's law and improved algorithms
> and software have contributed to faster processing of XML. XML's a lot
> faster today that it was eight years ago, and it was fast enough for a
> lot of use cases then.

is that processing or developing?

What I can tell you for sure is that customers patience in the 
marketplace is rapidly slowing....

Whatabout the pace of xml systems development? Wouldn't 
you say that that has slowed?

or XML book sales? (saw one of your books btw in the
bookshop - well done)

Whether the cpu can do the dma and memory fetches and
feed it to the seven iso layers before the edge of the next
interrupt is largely immaterial these days.

Nobody cares....

David
-- 
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Faster XML (was: Why XML for Messaging?)
• Next by Date: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread