It was for dramatic literary effect ... Obviously every technology has things that are cool and things that are terrible. However, I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed that, after 13 years, there isn't a clear choice of a technology to switch to from WO. For all of its pitfalls, I think WO has a really good balance of engineering decisions, and the length of its survival is a testament to that. Given that there has really been almost no external development of WO in years, you'd think that I could name a single technology that is an obvious choice to move to that has comparable trade-offs, but I have yet to see one that excites me in the same way. The problem is that you can't just make a suck ratio, because everyone has different values for suck coefficients. You could probably make a suck linear combination, though.
ms On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Ian Joyner wrote: > Now that I think of it, I'm not so sure I do agree that every technology > sucks. I certainly can appreciate well-designed elegant technologies that > solve a problem well. That's part of the excitement with this profession. If > everything just sucked most of us wouldn't be in it, well maybe those who are > just in it for the money, and perhaps they dominate the industry anyway, > which sucks and why there might be a high suck factor in technologies that > actually are used. And if all these technologies just sucked there would be > no use for them and end users would reject them. The uses that we can put > computers to are cool actually! > > Most computing systems are multifaceted, so there may be elements that are > elegant and parts that suck. What we need is a measure of elegance to suck > ratio. > > Ian > > PS I went through messages back to 2005, but couldn't find the first > reference to REST. Mail find picks up all words like restart, restrict, etc. > ERRest seems to be first mentioned Nov 2007, but I know we were talking about > REST before that - I first read Fielding's thesis sometime that year. > > On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:33, Ian Joyner wrote: > >> On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:23, Chuck Hill wrote: >> >>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: >>>> >>>> The moral of the story is that every technology sucks, so you might as >>>> well just build it fast so it can suck in production faster and you can >>>> move on with your life. >>> >>> I hate it when he is right. >> >> Don't think I hate it, but I think we all agree anyway. We should choose the >> path of least pain. >> >> By the way I did write up my understanding of REST lately: >> >> http://www.ianjoyner.name/Ian_Joyner/REST.html >> >> I hope this might be useful, or if any errors let me know. >> >> By the way, I think it was Chuck who was the first person I ever heard use >> the term REST. >> >> Ian >> _______________________________________________ >> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ianjoyner%40me.com >> >> This email sent to ianjoy...@me.com > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40pobox.com > > This email sent to msch...@pobox.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
