2009/3/31 Rob Eamon <[email protected]>: > --- In [email protected], Steve Jones > <jones.ste...@...> wrote: >> >> I wouldn't say that DARPA is an individual or that Brooks was the >> single guiding leader behind OS/360. There are loads of brilliant >> minds in the short history of IT (only one genius though, Alan >> Turning) but the question was around a consistent single leader >> being a good thing. > > Dave Cutler springs to mind as well. And in a completely different field, > Clarence "Kelly" Johnson. > > I think we probably agree--an effective leader can be a good thing, and an > ineffective leader can be a death-knell. I'd add this as well--a committee > without an effective leader will generally produce less compelling material > than will a group with a strong leader.
Agreed. My point on leaders is that no matter how brilliant (and Gosling for instance is certainly brilliant) they are not super-human so as the technology is applied outside of their sphere of knowledge it becomes a bigger challenge. > > Committees can be great when the goal is standardization--it matters more > that a standard be established than that the standard be a great technology > achievement. For SO principles, I think it matters more that the resulting > architecture fulfill the goals of the entity that it models. IMO, that means > strong architectural leadership and SO architects at all levels would > benefit from a broadly recognized leader. It would be nice, but OO seemed to do okay without one. > > Alas, SO is far from that. > > I recall someone pointing out that Gartner wasn't the definitive source for > the meaning of SOA--even though virtually everyone recognizes Schulte and > Natis as having coined the term and publishing the first formal definition. > > I recall also someone on another form saying that Gall's interpretation of > WOA was wrong--even though he was the one that defined the term in the first > place. You mean Nick didn't couch his definition with the phrase "there is a 0.8 probability that WOA means...." ;) > > Disagreements abound regarding what SOA means. I was wistfully and futilely > wishing for someone that could help unify things. Might the OASIS work > satisfy that? It seems doubtful as this is the only forum I've ever seen > anyone mention it. I agree that the marketing of the OASIS piece was poor, I personally wanted to see a bigger splash but its hard to get companies who aren't vendors to agree. I think "NASA agree on definition of SOA" would have been a great headline. Steve > > -Rob > >
