Re: [xml-dev] Transformational reciprocity (was [xml-dev] XML's greatest

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On 4/29/13 3:56 AM, Fraser Goffin wrote:
> Whilst those of us who work as integrators quite naturally accept that
> transformation between data formats is a given, that is not to say
> that we shouldn't actively seek transformation avoidance policies
> where-ever that is possible. Standardising exchanges between known
> trading partners and between internal applications is often possible
> and desirable and not only offers performance improvement but also
> makes the interaction significantly less complex, and less complex =
> fewer bugs = lower cost =... well, you get the idea.

Yes.  The insatiable goal of lower cost on industrial models means that 
most commercially applied technology explores only the visions that seem 
most amenable to total automation.

I do get why some people think that's a good thing.  I just don't think 
it's good for the technology, the business, or much of anything except a 
few temporarily pleased bean counters.

As I said in another thread, complete automation is not Nirvana.  That's 
hell.

Whatever your religious proclivities, hell is worth fighting.

Thanks,
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/