3 ms·
Plan9 sure is a marvel of engineering because all interactions amount to reading/writing a specific file, but it doesn't solve the issue that is interoperabilit
by rakoo 8y ago
Plan9 sure is a marvel of engineering because all interactions amount to reading/writing a specific file, but it doesn't solve the issue that is interoperability: it merely defines a way to connect to the remote service, but it doesn't say what the functional interface is.
- what "files" should I read from or write to ?
- what format should I use ?
- when should I interact with said files ? Is it ok to tail -f it or should I reopen it every time I want to get some new information ?
XML in itself didn't solve anything, it's the standards over how to define a grammar and validate it that made all the interoperability.
- xte 8y agoIMVHO there is a unnoticed problem underneath, probably best explained by XKcd standard's vignette (927), we will NEVER really accept for long time "proposed solution" but we can converge by nature to a common solution if we find a comfortable common way to move. Plan9 for me is an answer because yes, it does not solve problems you rightly pointed out, but instead offer a common ground to reduce them by nature. It offer a dramatically simple and effective "networked" solution so a good ground on top of which we can develop a future of IT and so future interoperable solutions. Emails do the same, when they start, which means when we really have a diversity/interoperability problem in communications: offer a means to develop a common ground on top instead offer a "common solution to be adopted". Every single product change, but needs tend to remain the same, Greenspun's tenth rule of programming perhaps is another example that tell the same thing better. I hope to be clear, English is not my motherlanguage and so express "philosophical" concept with it it's not easy for me...