[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Slowly (was Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:34:36 -0500
The oldSpeak was integrating "islands of automation"
The rate of change has to be controlled. Development
is not allowed to go at its own pace. It screws over
every other aspect of business. My problem with
so many things dot.com was the absolute ignorance
of how business works, how contracts are established,
and how costs are recovered. We are paying a heavy
price for that. Did we learn anything or are we
committed to trying the thing that didn't work again?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:email@example.com]
From: "Dave Winer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> The key benefit was that they
> could migrate to new languages and environments slowly, not all at once,
> could intermix components developed in different environments. Dave
I think this is a perceptive comment that also applies to XML (and SGML)
in general. Many people use XML to *slow down* change, in the sense
that they are adding more life (and upping ROI) to old systems by tacking on
service-based front-ends. Rather than replacing the whole system, they get
a nicer facade.