Re: Crippled Products and the IE Question

[John Robert BEHRMAN <jbehrman@netropolis.net>]

The message ought to go out over and over that everything on a computer is
integrated or not working.

The distinction to be made everyday in everyway is between monolithic,
undocumented, or simply "bad" code, sort of like "patent" or "unethical"
medicine, and "good", meaning well-engineered, standards-compliant code.

Thnx to Paul for putting in succinctly and PLAYON JRBehrman sends.....

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com> writes:
> > Incidentally, making modules so dependent on one another, the way
> > that Microsoft does, is a bad practice.
>
> This simple fact of software engineering is what Microsoft hope to
> hide with their use of the word "integration".  Well-designed software
> has always been made up of separable components, such that you could
> replace one component with a different vendor's version and, so long
> as it conforms to the same standards, the whole should keep working.
> If it isn't standards based, it's not "integration", it's lock-in.
>
> The non-technical market thinks "integration" is a buzz-word.  We need
> to explain to them that integration, Microsoft-style, is a *bad* thing.
>   __
> \/ o\    paul@hedonism.demon.co.uk    \ /
> /\__/ Paul Crowley -+- DATA IS SACRED /~\