> The entire point is the idea to deploy tiny chunks of code, independently, in any language. What does "tiny chunk of code" mean? According to the article: >

> The entire point is the idea to deploy tiny chunks of code, independently, in any language. What does "tiny chunk of code" mean? According to the article: > Literally, a simple interface that did one (or very few) things well. Hmm, sounds like the UNIX philosophy to me. Operating on code in a language-agnostic way? Sounds like scripting to me... > What if instead you could deploy classes. Classes are a language feature, so this looks to be asking for an alternative scripting language. > What if your operating system was in a way an API to deploy services (it is!) > but the size of the code deployed was so small that it would in turn be hard > to make mistakes. That's the point of UNIX: do one thing and do it well; compose the pieces using scripts. Of course, UNIX is not perfect, it's just an obvious comparison. I mentioned a few others above. That's what I got from the article, after squinting through the jargon ("deploy" instead of execute, "services" instead of processes, etc.)