[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Michael F. Maddox" <mmaddox@hcs.net>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 20:28:59 -0400
Funny that this is getting so much play on the list.
As computer scientists, haven't we realized that no single paradigm
perfectly fits every problem? We make tradeoffs in every solution, trying to
minimize the pain and maximize efficiency, but never entirely ridding
ourselves of the pain and never quite building the perfect system. We know
this is true, even with XML. But we know it's a better solution for interop
and a world of other issues that currently plague our field.
To this end, Dvorak isn't entirely wrong. XML looks complicated to the
non-programmer. But try to remember that people like Dvorak aren't
necessarily familiar with the alternatives that XML replaces. He has heard
too much of "one-size-fits-all" solutions that are swaddled in marketing
hype, and doesn't have the deeper exposure and understanding that we have.
Plus, I'm sure that he'd be happy to know he pissed some folks off. :)
Michael Maddox
Senior Software Engineer
Hayes
Tallahassee, Florida, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Edd Dumbill [mailto:edd@usefulinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 6:18 PM
To: Simon St.Laurent
Cc: Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev
Subject: Re: It is Pretty Dumb (Was RE: Not so stupid (was re: More
StupidXMLArticles))
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 05:49:50PM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Why is this list getting so hyper-sensitive about any press that suggests
> XML isn't perfect?
I'll gladly entertain notions that XML isn't perfect, but I won't do so
on the basis of an obivously erroneous (not just controversial) article.
-- Edd
|
