On 15/12/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/15/06, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > or c) start an underground movement > > of people using it in the belief that "everyone will come to realise". > > > > The later is often the worst of the two as it tends to explode in a > > mess, where as the first can often be ignored by good software > > architects and designers. > > Hmm, so how are people supposed to distinguish between that situation, > and an honest-to-goodness improvement on the status quo? Or do you > believe that if it was an improvement, that everybody would > immediately recognize it as such and adopt it, despite the fact that > it is likely to be disruptive to vendors with entrenched positions in > the market?
No I think if it was a genuine improvement they would be able to _demonstrate_ the improvement to _communicate_ why the change was required. If it was a genuine improvement they would not have to say "we just need to build yet another Java framework to do X, which we will then have to maintain internally and which our 3rd party developers won't have a clue about". If it was a genuine improvement they'd be able to clearly articulate what the benefit was rather than skulking around writing down right dangerous code (from a TCO perspective) in a "belief" that this is the "right thing". This applies just as much the latest vendor pushed tech as the open source world. Finally I've found that in most companies there are around 2% of the development community that have genuinely smart ideas and they tend to have them repeatedly, whereas the other 98% tend to think they do. > > Mark. >
