Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 03/02/12 12:53, Tei wrote: > He!... mediocrity is not always bad. > > Say... databases. Almost all web applications are built using > relational databases. Not all applications need a database. But web > applications are soehorn to use relational databases anyway. Tell me about it. I worked with some Oracle guys. They're really good, and seriously know their stuff, but ask them to add 2+2 and they'll define a table with two variables, write a screen to capture two values and stuff them into the table, then write a stored procedure to retrieve the values, add them, and format a report to print the result. They are perfectly aware of other ways of doing this, and it's not as if they don't have access to tools other than hammers, but I have seen one of them populate a HTML select element of five options by pulling the data from a specially-written table, for data which won't change in my lifetime (Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss/Dr). So how do we extend this to the philosophical choices faced with XML, HTTP, or anything else? First off, it's scale. Hard-coding a web-form visitor's choice of title isn't a big deal, and if you need to add Rev, or if you get assimilated by the BBC and need to add Lord and Lady, that's not a big deal either; nor is it a big deal doing it in the database, modulo some small penalty in retrieval and dependency. Convincing programmers to soft-code something large and mutable isn't hard either, like the set of ISO 3166 country codes, or the 639 language codes (or whatever the current suite is, I haven't looked at them for years). They can see the need for it, so the second clue is perception. We got 2-letter country TLDs when we could have used the 3-letter set and stayed the same length as .gov, .mil, .edu, .org, and .com. Doesn't matter a whole lot unless we end up with 26Ã26 nation states on the planet. But 2-letter language codes don't scale: there are way more than 676 languages on this earth. So eventually you get down to the third factor: judgement, which is based on knowledge and a shedload of other things. Programmer X speaks only Klingon, and doesn't really know much about other languages except for the existence of a few of them, high and far off; and certainly doesn't really care that anyone speaking Sindarin would ever have need to access the Internet, let alone in their own language. That's a harsh view, and mercifully rarer nowadays. Soften it a little and consider IBM (I believe: Len? Michael?) who were building a precursor to what would eventually become the foundations of Latin-1. Right down somewhere near the bottom right-hand corner came the ÿ (yuml) character, which is used in French, and mostly in the names of some towns, but so rarely that even some French people are unaware of it, as I discovered when I asked some French LaTeX typesetters. The ŵ character (wcirc), which is used daily by 3 million Welsh speakers didn't appear to get a look in until Latin-2. So whats close to and up front tends to have more effect on what we decide -- when nothing else intervenes -- than what is high and far off. That's why it's good to have people who are able to take the longer view, with deeper knowledge, who can warn when things are likely to break if they don't take certain factors into account. They won't always be heeded, as Michael says, and we'll always be able to look back with regret on things we should have done differently, but I think it *is* improving a little: I see projects now which *do* take things into account that 20 years ago would (were) laughed out of the water. So how much attention should we pay to charsets? It turns out, *lots*. But like my Oracle programmers, we have a bunch of knowledge on one side, and a bunch of tools on the other, and they all work, many even in the whole of Unicode, but we can't envisage the scale of demand for building that capability into every aspect of what we write, so we stick with what we know works. It's wrong, it will break, perhaps disastrously, and it will upset and affect lots of people, but right there and then it would have taken an order of magnitude longer to do it right. Perhaps we can learn from history for once :-) ///Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
