In other words, Microsoft is now creating a new document file format that can't be read by Office 2000 users. Their installed base is their biggest enemy, since Office 97 and 2000 are both more than adequate for most users' needs. And Office 2000 isn't crippled by DRM and activation. No one wants to upgrade. How can Microsoft possibly get rid of their old non-activation software that users are very happy with? Incompatible file formats! Office 2K users will now start getting these zipped XML files as e-mail attachments from Office 200x users, and not be able to read them.
Wait a minute! Who gets to decide what is a "bad idea" and what isn't? Who has the power of making the definition? Whoever has the power to make the definition automatically wins, by definition, because they set the rules of the game. Everyone else has to play by their rules. So this guy is saying he is smarter than "smart people" and can decide what is a bad idea? Isn't that hubris? If not him, then who is the final arbiter? And how do we get every smart person to agree to be arbited by that powerful person? The reason people defend "bad ideas" is they don't agree to let someone else have the power to declare what they believe a "bad idea".
The most obvious drawback in REXX is that the standard I/O calls don't work on the mainframe (where you have to use EXECIO calls), so it's not very portable. Really, REXX's biggest benefit is its tight integration with TSO (the mainframe command interpreter) and ISPF (the screen interface and editor). When REXX is by itself on other platforms, these benefits disappear. I use REXX on MVS (now called z/OS), but it just pales in comparison to Perl or Python for other environments.
Keep in mind REXX predates the adoption of C-ish syntax (C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, PHP, etc), so it's not as easy to switch gears mentally as it would be among the C-ish family. As you'd expect, the syntax has its quirks, especially if you don't use it much. None of the standard library functions has names like C's, unlike Perl and PHP. Truth be told, REXX looks a whole lot like structured BASIC.
REXX is quirky. You can use stems as associative arrays, but there is no mechanism to iterate over them. (I'm not joking.) No regular expressions built into the language like Perl has. No built-in systems programming interfaces (you have to ADDRESS the operating system to run commands, like bash, etc. - more of a flow control language like bash than an environment like Perl) While there are modern extensions like OO for REXX, they're not standard in all REXX interpreters, and are as clumsy as adding OO to BASIC, Fortran, COBOL, and other pre-C languages.
WROX has a REXX book, the only new one in ages and ages. Unfortunately, it concentrates on non-mainframe platforms where there frankly isn't as much to talk about because you don't have the tight integration with the OS.
This line of reasoning about computer science grads reminds me of expanding the major leagues in baseball in the 90s. We did not see more talented starting pitching as the result of more openings for pitchers through adding 3 or 4 new teams. And the minor leagues did not suddenly attract more talent. The mix stayed about the same (most players wash out, some make the majors on fundamentals as role players, and a few are significantly talented players). The computer field seems about the same. If there is demand for skills that can be taught, like LAN troubleshooting, people will come and go to fill the demand. The net total of the talented technical people who write OSes, dream up new software, and stuff like that (i.e. create new value) will be about the same. Not because of supply and demand, but because there are a finite quantity of people who will dream up innovative OSes, new programming paradigms and new software. These people will always be in demand somewhere because they add true value to an enterprise. It's the next tier, the role players, who come and go. In the late 90s, everyone learned HTML and hung out a shingle as a web site designer and coder, and now demand has evaporated, and they are gone. But how many people ever learned how to implement dynamic content systems based on relational databases, with security, for a real web site? Aren't they still in demand? And Oracle DBA demand comes and goes, but is there any slacking of demand for people to create innovative new apps that run on databases? You may be shorthanded with healthy pitchers, need to call someone up, and make room by releasing a utility infielder who has struck out in his last five pinch-hit appearances; but you'll keep a 40-home-run hitter on the roster. I think the baseball analogy is much closer to the computer field than the college one.
No spammer can be trusted. They lie about the fact that you opted in to get their spam, they lie to your e-mail filter, their products are lies, etc. So how could this, or any system, affect spam? At best, they'll just find a way to break the trust of the system. ("I am Mr. M'Bogo from Nigeria. If you click on my spam, I will deposit US$1,000,000,000.00 in your account") Where are the proposals which take spam into account for what it is, a system of dishonesty? All these schemes assume that spammers can be trusted to obey the scheme's rules. Surely we understand the nature of spam by now.
Will charging money improve the quality of NYT editorials? I mean, several columnists are so unoriginal that they never deviate from their formulas. I can pretty much guess what Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Moreen Dowd, and Bob Herbert will say without reading them. Kristoff and Brooks are fairly interesting, and Friedman has some occasionally interesting writing. Can we buy these a la carte? The NYT ought to try that, and see which columnists are interesting to readers. This idea of people subscribing to a liberal propoganda feed will be interesting to watch, particularly because so many web sites give away liberal opinions for free. I don't see the demand. The WSJ has the catbird seat, because they sell subscriptions (of real, useful news) to people who spend other people's money.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, Microsoft is now creating a new document file format that can't be read by Office 2000 users. Their installed base is their biggest enemy, since Office 97 and 2000 are both more than adequate for most users' needs. And Office 2000 isn't crippled by DRM and activation. No one wants to upgrade. How can Microsoft possibly get rid of their old non-activation software that users are very happy with? Incompatible file formats! Office 2K users will now start getting these zipped XML files as e-mail attachments from Office 200x users, and not be able to read them.
I read my e-mail for work. Does that make me an addicted workaholic? The followup story will write itself!
Wait a minute! Who gets to decide what is a "bad idea" and what isn't? Who has the power of making the definition? Whoever has the power to make the definition automatically wins, by definition, because they set the rules of the game. Everyone else has to play by their rules. So this guy is saying he is smarter than "smart people" and can decide what is a bad idea? Isn't that hubris? If not him, then who is the final arbiter? And how do we get every smart person to agree to be arbited by that powerful person? The reason people defend "bad ideas" is they don't agree to let someone else have the power to declare what they believe a "bad idea".
The most obvious drawback in REXX is that the standard I/O calls don't work on the mainframe (where you have to use EXECIO calls), so it's not very portable. Really, REXX's biggest benefit is its tight integration with TSO (the mainframe command interpreter) and ISPF (the screen interface and editor). When REXX is by itself on other platforms, these benefits disappear. I use REXX on MVS (now called z/OS), but it just pales in comparison to Perl or Python for other environments.
Keep in mind REXX predates the adoption of C-ish syntax (C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, PHP, etc), so it's not as easy to switch gears mentally as it would be among the C-ish family. As you'd expect, the syntax has its quirks, especially if you don't use it much. None of the standard library functions has names like C's, unlike Perl and PHP. Truth be told, REXX looks a whole lot like structured BASIC.
REXX is quirky. You can use stems as associative arrays, but there is no mechanism to iterate over them. (I'm not joking.) No regular expressions built into the language like Perl has. No built-in systems programming interfaces (you have to ADDRESS the operating system to run commands, like bash, etc. - more of a flow control language like bash than an environment like Perl) While there are modern extensions like OO for REXX, they're not standard in all REXX interpreters, and are as clumsy as adding OO to BASIC, Fortran, COBOL, and other pre-C languages.
WROX has a REXX book, the only new one in ages and ages. Unfortunately, it concentrates on non-mainframe platforms where there frankly isn't as much to talk about because you don't have the tight integration with the OS.
This line of reasoning about computer science grads reminds me of expanding the major leagues in baseball in the 90s. We did not see more talented starting pitching as the result of more openings for pitchers through adding 3 or 4 new teams. And the minor leagues did not suddenly attract more talent. The mix stayed about the same (most players wash out, some make the majors on fundamentals as role players, and a few are significantly talented players). The computer field seems about the same. If there is demand for skills that can be taught, like LAN troubleshooting, people will come and go to fill the demand. The net total of the talented technical people who write OSes, dream up new software, and stuff like that (i.e. create new value) will be about the same. Not because of supply and demand, but because there are a finite quantity of people who will dream up innovative OSes, new programming paradigms and new software. These people will always be in demand somewhere because they add true value to an enterprise. It's the next tier, the role players, who come and go. In the late 90s, everyone learned HTML and hung out a shingle as a web site designer and coder, and now demand has evaporated, and they are gone. But how many people ever learned how to implement dynamic content systems based on relational databases, with security, for a real web site? Aren't they still in demand? And Oracle DBA demand comes and goes, but is there any slacking of demand for people to create innovative new apps that run on databases? You may be shorthanded with healthy pitchers, need to call someone up, and make room by releasing a utility infielder who has struck out in his last five pinch-hit appearances; but you'll keep a 40-home-run hitter on the roster. I think the baseball analogy is much closer to the computer field than the college one.
No spammer can be trusted. They lie about the fact that you opted in to get their spam, they lie to your e-mail filter, their products are lies, etc. So how could this, or any system, affect spam? At best, they'll just find a way to break the trust of the system. ("I am Mr. M'Bogo from Nigeria. If you click on my spam, I will deposit US$1,000,000,000.00 in your account") Where are the proposals which take spam into account for what it is, a system of dishonesty? All these schemes assume that spammers can be trusted to obey the scheme's rules. Surely we understand the nature of spam by now.
Will charging money improve the quality of NYT editorials? I mean, several columnists are so unoriginal that they never deviate from their formulas. I can pretty much guess what Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Moreen Dowd, and Bob Herbert will say without reading them. Kristoff and Brooks are fairly interesting, and Friedman has some occasionally interesting writing. Can we buy these a la carte? The NYT ought to try that, and see which columnists are interesting to readers. This idea of people subscribing to a liberal propoganda feed will be interesting to watch, particularly because so many web sites give away liberal opinions for free. I don't see the demand. The WSJ has the catbird seat, because they sell subscriptions (of real, useful news) to people who spend other people's money.