3 ms·
I think the advantage of the "We don't have to share any infrastructure" mindset is that standardization is a process, not a destination. A living system will a
by bcoates 12y ago
I think the advantage of the "We don't have to share any infrastructure" mindset is that standardization is a process, not a destination. A living system will always have some diversity of libraries, versions, languages, etc. While it's important to keep it under control, a system that is robust to being half written in PHP and half in $goodlanguage is much more consistent with the messy reality than a plan of "Step 1, port everything to Ruby, Step 2, write a single set of SOA tools, Step 3, profit"
- PaulHoule 12y agoOf course, if you can slip new services under your existing PHP, ColdFusion or whatever backend, that makes a lot of sense. If you commit to supporting a finite number of languages, that's one thing. On the other hand, if you are going to introduce a new language every month you're on the road to hell.
- eikenberry 12y agoI've always found it best to allow the developers the freedom to use whatever they want as the official 'standard' and allow them to self organize into a few de-facto standards. You naturally standardize around better tech and attract better developers while not restricting future innovation. The one problem with this system is that it can be fairly easy to torpedo when you get new management who sees the lack of rules as a lack of organization. They will then enforce some arbitrary standard and waste a lot of resources figuring out their mistake.