He didn’t list my primary gripe with xml, and that is that schemas, especially nesting schemas, is absurdly difficult. My leads always looked sideways at me when I insisted on parsing xml with a schema, and it slowly I came to agree with them as all code used annotations to manage transformations. while schemas just produced bugs. The more strict the schema, the more useless it becomes.
I think these discussions would be a lot cleaner if people could debate XML separately from debating schema separately from doctypes/validation separately from XPath. These are obviously related tech and all vaguely “XML” but you don’t have to buy all of them to buy one of them. XML with namespaces and no schema or doctype or xpath or anything is very useful in its own right and is what I try to mean when I say “XML”.
The advancements are very real and are definitely going to shake up the economy. However, the article is exactly right in pointing out that the narrative of powerlessness and inevitability play to the god-like fantasies of Silicon Valley chatter. Predicting the outcome isn’t easy – look at digital music – but there are many many futures to choose from.
The major issue not addressed is deployment. This is where the benefits of a monorepo really kick in, but where most deployment systems break down. For example, say your system has 4 services, and they communicate with structures defined in a well defined location in the repo. Great, now you can change the data structure, and all the services that use it can be changed, compiled and tested all at once. Now, imagine that the change only affects 2 services, you want a way to deploy only those two services, simultaneously and safely, so that an old version of service1 never talks to a new version of service2. That’s a bit of a headache.
I don’t see why this is a headache in a way unique to monorepos.
Pretty cool. This contradicts a recent assertion made by ESR http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8223
That assertion inspired my search. When people say it’s impossible, I start DuckDuckGoing for terms that might lead to the counter-example. I just typed each thing he said was sequential into search with “parallel” next to it. Found a few things. Here’s another found from that search.
As side effect, you can tell he wasn’t fact checking those statements before publishing them. ;)