Ralf's Sudelbücher

Have come to feel very uneasy with the usual object orientation. It simply does not deliver on its promises. That´s of course not the fault of object oriented languages like C# or Java or C++. It´s the fault of those who use them in a way that leads their code straight into a brownfield. And it´s the fault of those who cannot provide easy enough guidance in using these languages.

In my previous blog post I hopefully was able to demonstrate how low the entry barrier is to asynchronous remote communication. It´s as easy as hosting a service like this

If you´ve read my previous posts about why I deem WCF more of a problem than a solution and how I think we should switch to asynchronous only communication in distributed application, you might be wondering, how this could be done in an easy way.

In my previous blog post I argued WCF was not the most usable and most easy to learn way for communication in distributed applications. This is due to its focus on synchronous communication (even though you can do asynchronous communication as well).

The title of this post has caught your attention? So let me explain what I mean by it: I think WCF is great. It´s the best communication framework Microsoft ever has come up with. WCF solves a lot of problems of its predecessors, it is tremendously extensible, and it supports the main communication paradigms (sync, async, P2P). WCF certainly is a solution of some kind.

In his recent blog posting Seth Godin once again questions the value of competence. Sure, he does not want to people dumber. He just argues that sole reliance on competence as a compass to navigate the future can - well - be a hindrance. He´s written about it already in 1999 and made clear, that competence is about accomplishing something on the basis of existing knowledge - and thus is different from finding new ways of doing stuff. Whoever is competent is not necessarily innovative or imaginative. But that´s what we need in the face of constant change.

As I read Kevin Kelly´s "Fate of the Book" I come to wonder what this debate he´s referring to is all about? Is it about form or content? Is is about texts as opposed to video or audio? Is it about texts of a certain minimum length and/or structure as opposed to text snippets? Or is it about a certain physical container for texts as opposed to digital texts? Or is it about certain types of physical containers?

Since I´m mostly concerned with software architecture and my clients are asking again and again when I´m going to write a book about the topic, I finally decided to set out and compile the material to go into the book. And I decided to do it publicly, in a new blog.