Lists Home |
Date Index |
* Daniela Florescu <email@example.com> [2004-12-28 15:22]:
> >As someone who was until very recently "one of those
> >implementers" I completely disagree with you. We had customers
> >who want to process XML documents that hundreds of megabytes to
> >gigabytes in size who can't afford to materialize even a fraction
> >of these documents in certain cases.
> But I also learned that a lot of reinventing the wheel is also for
> fun. I'm not gone comment on that. Next time I take a plane I can
> only cross fingers that the people who designed the air control
> traffic system optimized for something different then their
> programmers's fun.
It's odd because, recently, I've sworn off professionalism. I'm in
search of a higher standard. I find the more-professional-than-thou
attitude to be so trying, pathetic really. An insulting
In all this discussion, one quip from one programmer, has taught
you that a, what, majority of the application of SAX is amusement.
I'm not, sure. What does one say to that? Why is it that when a
programmer confesses a fetish for a particular discipline, that
makes us unprofessional? Did I let slip my belief that I am not
entirely interchangable? How insulting, really.
> My conclusion: please rely on good compilers, good optimizers and
> good runtimes instead of writing XML processors by hand if you
> don't *really* have to (and few people really have to). And trust
> the vendors/open source implementors that they will produce such
> good compilers, optimizers and runtimes when time comes.
Which, I guess, is in line with the previous insult.
Do you event realize who you are addressing on this list?
You realize, of course, that a lot of the people on this list
are the very vendors and open source developers you admonish us
Good that you tolled them. I've learned something, as always,
from the respones.
> As far as I am concerned, the horse is dead, I don't have much
> else to add.
But, thanks, anyway, for the brochures.
Alan Gutierrez - firstname.lastname@example.org