RE: [xml-dev] Painful USA Today article (was RE: [xml-dev] ANN: RESTTutorial)

["Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>]

> > Our customers really don't know much about XML.  It is a
> > checkbox.  Again, if they do that, say yes and take their
> > money.  If they say "NENA spec'd ANI/ALI using the XML
> > format", it is money for value.
> 
> This is a great way to get rich but an appalling way to design good
> software. Microsoft made a mint doing it, but also left us with
horribly
> difficult and badly designed languages such as COM and VB.
> 
> You decide which one you want.

I think Len is making the same point as you.  It sounds like he is
saying, as a matter of principle, he would prefer to use XML where it
actually provides value.  He is just pointing out that sometimes (and
especially in the case of RFP, DOD, etc.) you don't have a choice.
Nobody is suggesting sell snake-oil.  But if an RFP says that you need
to use XML in the foreigner-tracking database, then that's what you have
to do.  From an ethical standpoint, you still know that you are
providing overall value in the foreigner-tracking database, but you may
feel that the use of XML doesn't add to the value (and perhaps reduces
the value-per-dollar by a small amount just because it is a mindless
requirement that costs money to implement).  In the case of an RFP, XML
is typically a checkbox, like Len said -- an "implementation detail".
There are still DOD RFPs that specify that you must code the solution in
Ada.  It is obvious to anyone that VB is the most productive language to
write any system in, but it is still ethical to write it in Ada -- you
don't really have a choice if that's a hard requirement of the RFP.