Nice post Charlie. I'm also an 'old hand' at this after 31 years in the profession. When I started out the 'new thing' was structured programming and then I got a job working on 3million lines of spaghetti assembler code in a listing stack 3 metres high. Ive seen things come and go and despite the hoo-ha about XML I see it as over-sold and under-performing. Sure it has its place but not everywhere as some would say.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charlie Coleman Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2009 5:00 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [NF] M$ is pushing ahead for performance At 11:04 AM 1/14/2009 -0600, Stephen Russell wrote: >On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Charlie Coleman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, the real Charlie will speak up for a moment. > > > > XML does suck at data transmission and storage. Period. Sorry for all you > > XML enthusiasts out there, it's just the plain simple truth. >------- ... > > XML did not catch on because of any "technical performance" or "efficiency" > > reason. It caught on because of these 3 facts: > > > > 1) gave a common interchange "structure" and a way to "save face" > > (explained below) >------------------------------------- >Best reason so far. Glad you agree. And you show a glimmer of understanding that XML really wasn't a "new" technology. > > 2) it gave a new area where money could be made >--------------- > >hahahahaha you are pulling at straws here. Aw.... you showed promise and now you blow it completely with your naiveté of the business world. I thought you'd have understood this right away being an MS-head and all. > > 3) PHB's could "read" XML so they thought that it was "naturally" an easy > > standard >---------------------------------------- > >This was the funniest statement and your proof below was just as far >out of whack. Wow. I guess you must have still be in diapers when this was going around. It was very common for the PHBs to mandate XML and when they were pushed for reasoning they'd point to printouts and "show how easy it is". >------------------ > > XML is rotten for efficient data storage. It is rotten for data > > transmission. The area it shines is the area it was meant to shine: data ... >XML is rotten for data storage is a broad statement. For some things ... >I like XML data storage for a preset list, say your going to message ... >my request. I pass that over to your system and you put into a >response doc what my answer is. I catch the answer and everything is >great. > >I don't have to care what your system is, just that our data in and >out is consistent. Yes it was a broad statement and yes I agree that in a very few cases XML is "OK" for data storage. But the rest of your talking here has nothing to do with XML. Any defined data interface scheme would work just as well and give you all the things you mentioned. So, again, nothing new under the sun. > > It's default adoption as "web service" data is not > > good IMO. Because of it's size, structure, etc, things "run" slower. And ... >Funny how the little fish in the pond, IBM, SAP tend to see things >from a different POV. Granted they don't see things from a singular >aspect like many of us do. I have been following SOA for some time >now and see that as the standard to follow. Like I said before, big vendors hopped on board because of my "3 reasons." Now that they're on board XML abounds everywhere. That doesn't make it a great technical solution, it makes it an ad-hoc defacto recommendation. SOA is not by default an XML world. And look at your diagram .... it looks like MS is moving away from XML (in purity) for it's SOA vision. Do you have a degree in Computer Science/Engineering? Because you're tieing yourself too much to buzzwords and not the real issues. Making data/function/process available/flexible has nothing to do with XML, and everything to do with defined interfaces. Web services can be implemented in all kinds of ways - HTML, XML, etc. > > Still people don't understand XML. Some say it's "queryable".... LOL... > > wait a sec... I had to get off the floor. It still makes me laugh to hear ... >Now taking Linq to XML and doing lamda connections to Linq to SQL you >can now query from your XMl and join to your database in the same >query. That is so massive in capabilities you don't even have a clue >because you shun one standard today. Massive in capabilities?? ROFL!!! Nope dude, you are incredibly MS-blinded. Just because MS finally thought about working with data not-their-own doesn't mean everyone else hasn't been doing it for a long time. And again, nothing special or beneficial pertaining to XML here. ... >within. With XML it is straight forward. Oh and you don't have to >have a local copy of that engine the doc was create in. No virus from >macros either. Pulling data from XML is no more "straightforward" than any other structured data or defined format approach. And for some reason you seem to think XML is the first time the computer industry has learned to parse data as data. I can understand your confusion I suppose since MS has worked hard to muddy that aspect, and they continually pump out products that love to treat data as executable code to the delight of hackers. But anyway, any data file, when parsed as data, will not suffer from the "macro virus" issue so widely propagated in the Windows world. Computing 101 understanding. ... >Sorry but Office is a great arry of products. ... Functionally MS Office is OK (frustrating interface IMO). But Open Office is just as good if not better and promises to support "open" standards (like XML) into the future. I can see you have a problem with the conflict here: MS-groupie vs. XML-lover. ... > > Back to the topic: Partly because of "XML", web pages today truly suck. The > > ones that I find are tolerable are the ones that are simply publishing > > articles (which, interestingly enough, is pretty much what the "Web" was >----------------------------------------- >Some design is poor and still in use today. OK, let me be clear. Nearly all web pages (apart from simple article presentation) "suck" in relation to every "desktop" application I've seen that does similar functionality. > > Next, I'd like to comment on the concern about using XML when "both ends" > > of the pipe are controlled. >----------------------------- > >My company has web sites for applications as well winform apps that >need some of the same data. Push the data the same so I can bend from Pushing data "the same" has nothing to do with XML. Make up your own wonderful library of data parsing functions and you get the same result. Publish it on the web and everyone can use it (hmmm... sounds like open source, sorry I know you can't get seem to get into that 'new technology'). This has nothing to do with XML, this issue is a responsibility of system design. > > Lastly, as you can tell, living through decades of the travails of various > > "industry paradigm shifts" (so-called) I've gotten pretty jaded. >------------------------------ > >You act like an old man Charlie. You are well passed jaded. :-> Interesting, you type like a grade-schooler (it's "past" dude... work on that with the "your vs you're" issues). I hope you don't actually reason at the same level. > > It seems very few computer professionals really understand the actual > workings of > > computers any more. They want to take the easy way out, collect their > > paycheck, and go their merry way. To hell with technological advancement, ... >I think your prejudice stops you from moving forward the way the rest >of the industry is flying by. This lock to old school technology as >the only answer is self-serving as well. ... My prejudice? Do you know how much time I spent looking at XML, testing it's usage, comparing performance with other solutions. Well, perhaps I should apologize because I didn't specify how much time I have spent in such areas. To summarize, I've spent a HUGE amount of time with it. I'm locked to old school technology? Sorry dude, I don't define advancement by the version number MS puts on it's products. If you understood computing technology, neither would you. If you think I avoid browser-based applications because I don't understand them, then you're sadly mistaken. I know quite a bit about browser based solutions and the more I investigate them, the less I'm inclined to suggest them as business solutions. Anything going over the wire is susceptible to capture/attack. Hackers have their fun in a general sense, but in a few years true industrial level espionage using the weaknesses of the Web will be in full bloom. Internet encryption schemes (including SSL) have proven to be crackable with modest means and just a little specific information. So yeah, SOA over the web using "default" protocols/vendor approaches does not trip my fancy. If you would actually take the time to understand what is going on at the true computing level, you may be a little more immune to the general BS pushed around on a day to day basis. But then, you've told me before you don't really care about all that. You just want to get the customer what they want and who cares if they spent 5 times what they should have on it and who cares if it's not really that secure. And heck, when MS comes out with the "next thing" that just means you can charge the clients again to redo what you did before. Yep, I see that attitude a lot in the computer industry. I think it's a terrible thing. ... >If you increased your tolerance to these new ideas you would probably >see the merit they carry. ... I've found my tolerance has decreased with time as I see the computer industry getting more ignorant by the day. The same 'concepts' are released under new names and everyone goes crazy. In the meantime, those of us who actually know and understand the underlying aspects of computing, already know the limitations and problems of this "new" thing because we've seen them before. I suppose being and "old man" in the computer industry has it's merits. But it also ups the intake of Excedrin Migrane pills. >I am not a fan of everything in XML, just where it seems fit. That >area is pretty wide today and I am sure it will be replaced by a >better alternative in the future. Till then use what is proven, good, >and shareable. Realize this, if you don't consider yourself a "fan" of XML, you sure put out a lot of the propaganda of it in your discussions. So maybe you need to rethink that a bit. From what I can tell, you want to use what MS recommends for now, and what is easy to work with in MS tools. You don't really want to understand anything beyond that. But keep on plugging. Other professionals will probably bail you out eventually. -Charlie [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
