Other things I don't get (WAS: Re: A Joeish Erlang distribution (long))
Wed Jan 29 12:18:43 CET 2003
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Per Bergqvist wrote:
> Regarding parlay they have now started to publish xml/soap interfaces.
> xml/soap for traffical interfaces is even more bizarro.
> I asked a colleague the other day if he could explain one good thing
> with xml and the funny thing is that he was totally confused about
> this too.
> If I think xml as such is totally overrated, I believe that soap is
> pure stupidity. Since this xml hysteria has been bugging for quite
> some time now it would be interesting to hear others opinions.
It has *one* benefit - it's a standard for a strongly typed data
Amazingly (and stupidly) the majority of applications do not verify
the XML against a DTD or schema but only check that the stuff is "tag
balanced" - if you're going to do this there is NO benefit and you
might as well have used lisp S-expressions.
SOAP will however enable vast numbers of new applications (like
postscript did :-)
It's very good for the industry - Microsoft have re-invented the RPC
- twenty years later and horrendously inefficient - but baking a SOAP
app together must be orders of magnitude easier than grappling with
DCOM or Corba - so we can expect a rosy future.
If we wait a few years, we'll see lots of interesting problems
occur with "web services" based on SOAP.
In five years Microsoft will have to re-invent transactions, and in
ten years time *distributed* transactions (like in Mnesia) - this will
be done in the SOAP framework - and be so horrendously complicated
that'll we'll remember with fondness the Halycon days of programming
with Corba and DCOM ... Consultants will love this and the good 'ol
heady days of full employment for programmers and thousands of man
hours overruns in SW budgets will be back.
> Am I way off here ???
> (I'm sorry if this all sounds like I have pms, but I truly believe
> that traffical interfaces should have simple and efficient codings.)
(pms - I didn't know - when did you have the op?)
No we need even more innefficient protocols - this will sell more H/W
(Ericsson out the crisis) and employ more programmers.
I guess in a few years streaming media will be transmitted thus:
<!DOCTYPE SYSTEM movie "http://www.microsoft.com/we/rule/the/world/movie.dtd">
If every adopted this the demand for H/W would rise - with great
ensuing benefit for the western economy.
What else are we going to do with the gazillions of GHz and petra-bytes/sec
of bandwidth ????
PS - If you want simplicity and expressive power use my UBF format
More information about the erlang-questions