Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Saturday 14 September 2002 9:32 pm, Mike Champion wrote:
> 9/14/2002 4:01:21 PM, Rich Salz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >In terms of other stuff -- e.g.,
> >development time,
What's wrong with development time with ASN.1?
> > integration with Web servers, services, and
> >architecture -- ASN.1 bites.
Hah! More like this upstart Internet, having found itself in the press a lot,
now expects the rest of the data processing world to talk on its terms!
What you're talking about is an 'availability of tools' issue, not a real
problem with ASN.1... hear me out here for a minute.
I see too many long term decisions in computing based on the implementations
rather than the ideas that are implemented. Sure, if you need to get a
project completed, choose a tool.
But in a debate about what tools should be implemented, what has the current
avaialability of tools got to do with it? Perhaps if this was a discussion
within a company of what commercial direction would be best to go in, making
a tool for an area with a lot of existing tools to interoperate with might be
on the cards, but that's not what we're doing.
We're nerds for crying out loud! We're supposed to lust after the most
powerful and elegant and easy to use option, and constantly bemoan that fact
that big business sells our managers on the idea of the least powerful, most
ugly, and most awkward to use thing!
> Precisely. That's why "worse" in the (generally) trivial sense
> of CPU/bandwidth efficiency is "better" overall ... and
> why Datapower, etc. will be happy to help you throw hardware
> at the problem in those situations where XML's inefficiency
> leads to a bottleneck.
Yeah! We're supposed to complain bitterly about that, not shrug and say "Oh
Oh, pilot of the storm who leaves no trace, Like thoughts inside a dream
Heed the path that led me to that place, Yellow desert screen