[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Let's paint a broader picture. I don't think we're talking about market
adoption of a standard, we're talking about market adoption of a
technology. A good example: C++ was finally standardized in 1997, but
was already gaining rapid momentum shortly after being created in 1985.
C++ gained an audience because it addressed its target audiences
problems, for the most part, appropriately, and they overwhelmingly
didn't care whether or not it was standardized, or even had
implementations that were compatible with each other. We can make the
same case for SQL.
Technologies don't become adopted because of their standards status,
they're adopted on their own virtues, or because Microsoft tells you
that you have to adopt them. XQuery has not been finalized for years,
yet it hasn't changed all that much from the 10k ft view, making it a
perfectly good candidate for implementations, even moreso than SQL or
C++ were in their early years. The implementations are there, and
they're mostly good, so now the question to ask is why aren't people
using them in the numbers you were expecting?
--
Tom Bradford - Virtuoso Technology Evangelist
OpenLink Software: http://www.openlinksw.com/
Personal Web Log: http://www.tbradford.org/
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Tom Bradford wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, I think the fact that it's now December of 2004, and
>> we've yet to see a rec of XQuery 1.0, even though it's been touted as
>> the de-facto successor in XML query languages for years leaves ample
>> room for comparison. Any language that has been built up on that much
>> hype for so long, yet is not finished, is open for comparison to any
>> other, even if it hasn't found widespread acceptance.
>
>
> I think that market adoption of a standard is hugely influenced by (1)
> a completed standard, and (2) good implementations of that completed
> standard.
>
> If you think a fair comparison can be made without taking these into
> account, I guess we disagree.
>
> Jonathan
>
|
