Re: [9fans] xml

[Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>]

On 30 Jun 2010, at 9:53 pm, Wes Kussmaul wrote:

>
> If you gathered up a bunch of old, proven data representation
> methods, packaged it as XML 2.0, formed an XML 2.0 consortium and
> put it out there energetically with bullet points and with a
> straight face, people would buy it.
>
> No, listen, it's true, they would. The straight face part is
> important though.

Oh absolutely! You want to be successful in the computing world, pick
an idea that's been forgotten and market it. It's been done over and
over again, often to bad effect, reintroducing ideas which should
have long been buried. I do wonder if this is what the Go authors are
trying to do in a different area to xml; reintroduce good practice
under new terminology.

Perhaps there is a hard part to it: writing the idea up in such a way
as to not offend the misled sensibilities of the average sheep. Those
"misled sensibilities" are certainly a very serious problem for Go.

>
> http://fudili.com/
>
> "If God had not meant them to be shorn, He would not have made them
> sheep."
> - Pancho Villa
>
> --
> Learn about The Authenticity Economy at
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1419344994607129684&hl=en#
>
>