> What matters 15 years later isn't the perpetual "Smalltalk rox, C++
> sux" (or vice versa) discussions (of which the SOAP vs REST
> permathread reminds me), but the actual design principles that can
> still be applied in C#, Java, Ruby, etc.
I think that's a pretty good analogy. I've been part of successful
C++, Smalltalk, and Lisp projects, as well as failures with each of
these tools. While C++ give the appearance of more control, Smalltalk
and Lisp actually had more expressive architectures with fewer moving
parts. Fewer principles are needed with simpler architectures.
The same could be said for SOA today. Given Werner's simple definition
I think the argument could be made that the web architecture (HTTP) is
more like the dynamic language approach to OO. There seem to be fewer
moving parts with this approach, but at least as much expressiveness,
arguably more, than with the C++-ish WS-* conglomeration of parts.
OO seems simple. SOA seems simple.
Smalltalk is simple. C++ is complex.
HTTP/XMPP is simple. WS-* is complex.
Good analogy.
-Patrick
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
