RE: Slowly (was Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

The oldSpeak was integrating "islands of automation" 
and loosely.

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?

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au]

From: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>

>  The key benefit was that they
> could migrate to new languages and environments slowly, not all at once,
and
> 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.