[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Gavin,
> Then you obviously haven't watched people spend millions of dollars a
> year trying to build and maintain a corporate web site. Indepedent of
> REST architecture, the success of the web, as I've seen it evolve, is
> largely due to a sequence of quick wins (instant gratification) and
> boatloads of hype dollars.
This might be true, but I doubt it. I truly believe that the Web, for all
its warts and insufficiencies, is far better for the development of, say, a
corporate website, than anything that came before. The hype came *after*
people discovered that their grandmothers were putting together websites,
not before. The reasons have a lot to do with what Paul sets forth in this
REST article, especially the notion of declarative (rather than procedural)
programming.
> The *FACT* is that the devil (and the cost) is in the details. Have
> you ever built something like http://www.internetweek.com/ and then
> maintained it? If you have, I'd *love* to know your secret to success
> so I can point people at it.... I'm as much of a SMOP-monger as anyone
> else, but exerience tells me that the barrier to entry is high, and
> getting higher.
>
> The web, as it exists, is tremendously successful, and tremendously
> *wasteful*....
I still don't really see what you are getting at. You seem to imply in your
initial post that we would be better off having separate infrastructure for
information delivery and application development. Then you give the example
of InternetWeek.com, which looks like the perfect example of an application
that requires both. Would you try to build it in Visual Basic, C++ or
client-side Java instead? I would say rather that the unique potential of
Web technologies has given rise to requirements that never existed before
(like corporate websites). It's still young technology, and that shows, but
I'm a SMOP-monger too, and I believe that there are far better Web
development and content management and publishing tools to come...
Matt
|
