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

Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:57:34 -0500
• In-reply-to: <1016466498.841.43.camel@l...>

3/18/2002 10:48:17 AM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> wrote:

>
>Microsoft had deep pockets and time to spend writing tools and
>applications, not to mention a lot of patience through the early days of
>Windows.  They also put a lot of work into hiding the complexity of
>Windows APIs using tools ...
>I think Macromedia may be attempting to do the same with Flash:

That's a good point, and muddies the clarity of my "If Tim is right,
REST will beat SOAP-RPC" prediction.  If it is easier to use a more
complex technology with good tools than a simpler technology that
supposedly doesn't need tools, does its success prove or disprove
the 80/20 rule?  I guess it comes down to how well the underlying
technology can be hidden. 

I don't know much about this, but we don't hear much about "RISC" 
processors anymore.  Is this a "failure" for the 80/20 rule,
or an example that well-hidden complexity can survive and prosper?
Or has RISC quietly succeeded and it's just not news anymore?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Next by Date: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Previous by thread: Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Next by thread: Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread