Technology only matters where it is applied. The most common problem is where people focus on the technology as being the solution rather than thinking about the problem first and then what technology is appropriate.
Technology helps, technology hinders as the famous saying says "to err is human, to really foul things up however you need a computer" and of course GIGO. The pendulum in IT is far to far over the technology first side, pushed by vendors with big marketing budgets and duplicitous claims. Now I might be short sighted and naive, but I would say that comparing technologies for flexibility independently of the problem is pretty much a recipe for disaster. Unless you are saying MQSI against something in which case its a dog. Steve 2008/10/31 Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > htshozawa wrote: >> Agreed. Relational database is much easier to learn and use then >> the "other" databases. It's possible compare the cost advantage of >> using a relational database. >> In a similar manner, it's possible to calculate the cost advantage of >> using SOA concepts and tools. I think we're having problems because >> of a strong focus on technology and on trying to compare using >> ambiguous term like "flexibility", which is very hard to quantify. > > People want to focus on technology because there are specific features of > pieces > of technology which are valuable. One is "maturity" (the ability to actually > work) another might be "flexibility" (in many different senses, such as > transport layers, marshalling/unmarshalling capabilities etc). Until there > is > exactly one programming language, exactly one transport and exactly one > marshalling/unmarshalling mechanism, technology will always matter. > > I think it is short sighted and pretty naive to try and suggest otherwise. > > Gregg Wonderly >
