[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:54:51 -0500
At 09:57 AM 3/29/01 +1000, Marcus Carr wrote:
>The fact that they are experts doesn't mean that
>they have somehow evolved past what made them good developers in the first
That's precisely what I'm claiming it does, perhaps especially when they
are gathered into committees.
I'll also claim that most experts don't realize it happens, and will deny it.
> > To over-generalize, here's what the problem looks like:
>[Points about defining, optimising and combining layers deleted.]
>One could over-generalise in the other direction as well. In many
>the inexperienced are prone to over-complicate a system, whereas someone
>understands the issues has the confidence to implement what might look
>embarassingly simple solution.
Yes, given a pile of tools, the inexperienced sometimes try to use them
all. Or, like me in my woodworking shop, they try to buy a tool to solve
each and every problem. (My tools to talent ratio is pretty awful right now.)
However, that hasn't been my experience. I've seen some grotesque hacks
when developers use the tools they know to solve inappropriate problems,
and some ugly pileups as requirements for projects changed and code reuse
rather than refactoring was the rule. More typically, though, I've seen
people work through small projects on their way to bigger ones, learning to
use tools only when they need them.
Individual experts do produce far simpler things than inexperienced users
on a fairly regular basis. I just don't see this happening in the
>Given the unquestionable complexity of the XML
>suite, should we infer that the creators were in fact not expert enough?
>not, and besides, what real value is there in this sort of deconstruction
>hindsight? It won't even assist in deciding who should participate in
>unless one of us can produce some concrete evidence supporting our position.
No, but it might suggest to more 'ordinary' developers that
specification-building isn't work reserved for Olympians. By pretending
that such tasks are purely the work of annointed institutions and
individuals, we continue to tell people that they're only consumers.
I don't expect to change who gets on WGs in the short term. I very much
hope to change who participates in standards building over the longer
term. Perhaps the greatest achievement of XML is that it makes it possible
- even easy - for a much wider group of developers to participate in
"standards creation" on a wide variety of levels. To me, that's really
cool. I'd hate to bury that potential under a landslide of features, even
if they come with an "experts' seal of approval."
Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books