In response ... Dear John

re: In response ... Dear John

Henk de Koning — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:59:07 GMT

While you guys are fighting your little war, let's all agree that whereever you end up on the spectrum that ranges from build-the-packet-yourself to bold-and-beautiful-powertool-handles-all, the design of a distributed app still needs some clever thinking -- especially the interaction pattern between the different remoted parts.

I am so glad that even when using WCF you actually have to type something special in your code to make it remote (sure, it's just a few attribs in its simplest form). I think that is good. I hope it will force people to think before they remote ...

re: In response ... Dear John

Paul Kinlan — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:09:40 GMT

Hi,

I hope this doesn't come out as a rant, but the start of your reply is quite childish.

"I hope you’ll forgive my impudence and grant me the opportunity to ask for your assistance. I bow to your oh so evidently superior mind as I clearly do not possess the gargantuan intellect necessary to comprehend your perspective.".

You could have put it a lot more professionally, and not lost any respect. It seems that John was saying that having read your article he didn't like it and didn't think the advice you provided was very good. Other than plainly stating that I didn't see any of the ... I don't know how to say it... trash talking you did in this entry, in his article. He stated an opinion that you got it wrong. [You might have for all I know.]

The middle of your post, rebutting his remarks is fair game.

You end it with: "I and everyone else who believe that the Web services platform have clearly got it so very, very wrong.

I look forward to your authoritative perspective."

You belive that yourself and everyone has got the web service platform wrong? Really? Again, I thought you were being slightly childish.

I personally belive you could have done a better and stronger reply and response by not slanderizing [is that a word?] John with name calling. You could have rebutted his points and show that you are in deed a leading authority on the subject. Name calling, I think seems to show that you get stroppy about criticism.

My opinion anyway. And I really don't want to cause offence, but your reply to john kind of took my by surprise.

Paul Kinlan.

re: In response ... Dear John

David Ing — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:14:39 GMT

Hello Richard,

Hmmm. Things I know (as of today):

1. John's post was both funny and aggressive. He said what he thought. I liked that.

2. Your rebuttal was both funny and aggressive. You (obviously) said what you thought. I liked that. You might have overcooked it slightly, but it was still edible.

3. My guess would be that most readers will just think you're both just being aggressive rather than funny. They won't like it.

4. John has posted follow ups where he has tried to define his discomfort with Indigo. I think the nearest he's got so far is 'WCF doesn't smell right for covering up some abstractions that, in JCJ's opinion, are important not cover in doing an Everyman Mort DistComp design'. Conclusion that are probably not going to stop Whidbey shipping...

5. You're 'The Vendor' and John's, well, not. Not much point at being angry at him, as it won't squeeze anymore useful info out of the thread. Now you don't have to stand defenselessly by while people criticize your paper, but at the end of the day what difference is your reply going to make? It does make you look a little angry?

Anyway, enough with the Kofi Annan - has anyone got $20 on Goodwin's Law invoked on this topic by the end of the month?? $10?? I say we pool the winnings and buy margaritas at the PDC…

- David

re: In response ... Dear John

RichTurner666 — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:23:08 GMT

I am sorry if you thought my response childish. This was not the intention. What I was trying to get across was the fact that Johns initial comments and criticisms are (in my opinion) all over the place and that he's not clearly articulating his thoughts and perspectives in a way that I can understand. So, either he really does have a better option (but needs to be clearer in his critiques) or I really am just too dense to get it. Specifically not wanting to denegrate or slander him, I opted for the latter position and I invited him to be more concrete and to illustrate clearly what it was he was thinking - albeit, admittedly, maybe in a manner "a little over the top".

Point taken though - toning down ... just a little.

re: In response ... Dear John

RichTurner666 — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:36:23 GMT

Henk: I could not agree more ... and I am sure that John and practically everyone else who reads this and related blogs would do so too.

I have blogged several times on this subject and spoken about it more times than I can count. I think it's summarized well by Martin Fowler's first law of building distributed systems which, paraphrased, states "Don't unless you really have to"!

And if you have to ... then be really careful how you design and implement the system. Avoid statefulness, avoid chattiness, avoid the wire at all cost, minimize data being exchanged to the minimum necessary, etc., etc., etc.

And, yes, I totally agree that there is a cost to making hard things deceptively easy.

re: In response ... Dear John

David Ing — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:39:35 GMT

Ah - the edits make it seem much calmer and rational. Of course, makes less exciting reading though; and I guess the $20 bet is off now then... :-)

- David

re: In response ... Dear John

RichTurner666 — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:16:47 GMT

Goodwin's Law??? Always up for a worthwhile wager! ;)

re: In response ... Dear John

Bruce — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:49:54 GMT

Henk and Paul, your Hitlereque attempts to denigrate and supress Rich's response might fly in 1940 - but not today. Rich has a right to be heard!

re: In response ... Dear John

Bruce — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:51:56 GMT

(Does that mean I get the $20? *grin*)

re: In response ... Dear John

Dennis van der Stelt — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:56:21 GMT

Why is your loginname "RichTurner666" ?
Why the 666 ?

re: In response ... Dear John

Paul Kinlan — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:24:01 GMT

I like the edits over the original. :) I personally think it looks stronger.... If that makes sense.

Kind Regards,
Paul Kinlan

re: In response ... Dear John

Erik Johnson — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:53:54 GMT

Richard, I saw your comment asking John to discuss these points in his BOF session.

Better yet, why don't BOTH of you come to my BOF slot -- "App Designs for SOA" (Tuesday, 10:15PM) and get me off the hook for coming up with talking points!

re: In response ... Dear John

RichTurner666 — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:23:22 GMT

Regarding the 666 - here's what happened:

Back when MSDN blogs first started rolling, we were hosted on the same infrastructure that hosted the ASP.NET blogs which anyone could sign up to. When I first tried to sign up with my alias (richardt), it was already taken. So was richturner, rturner, rich.turner, richard.turner, richturner123, richturner000, etc. Rather than have richturner4562343 or some other completely unforgettable name, I chose 666 because 111, 222, 333, 444, 555 were all taken too!

Never did I think my blog would become as popular as it has. About 3 months after I started blogging, we moved MSDN blogs to a new infrastructure where only Microsoft employees could register. I changed my blog name to richardt (yippee!) but alas, our infrastructure is less than flexible and I am still trying to get the ops guys to understand that I want my sign-in name changed to richardt too ... bear with me though - have been having a conversation on this issue for over 3 months now, and hope for a resolution very soon!

Rest assured, I have no occult leanings, although my sign-in name has sparked more than a few humourous comments from people pointing out that I work at Microsoft ;)

re: In response ... Dear John

Tom Fuller — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:23:49 GMT

At the risk of exposing myself as a 'newbie' I just had to thank you guys for the good laugh I got when I actually looked up Goodwin's Law (http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html). I had fully expected it to be some meaningful law that would enlighten me on the progression of distributed development technologies. I printed out the definition and headed off for lunch expecting to sit down and really learn something new. Well I did, many thanks for the education :)

re: In response ... Dear John

Bruce — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:14:17 GMT

Trust me, there is *substantial* empirical evidence backing up Goodwin's Law!

re: In response ... Dear John

RichTurner666 — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:50:30 GMT

ROFL ROFL ROFL! :) An education indeed. I've just learned the term for the first time too! :) Bruce - you win! ;)

Dear Rich

Message for you, sir! — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:26:04 GMT

Messaging vs. RPC

Stefan Tilkov's Random Stuff — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:48:29 GMT

Nothing like a nice pissing contest: Rich Turner and John Cavnar-Johnson go back and forth about how to do distributed programming the right way. The starting point was Rich&#8217;s whitepaper on Developing Distributed Services Today, to which John posted a somewhat less than favorable comment. Rich responded (a little childishly, IMO, even in the edited version); John followed up again....

Dear John ... Part II

On the road to Indigo — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:27:17 GMT

Dear John, Part II
Thanks once again for discussing your thoughts on my musings in my last blog to you....

Dear John ... Part II

On the road to Indigo — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:27:49 GMT

Thanks once again for discussing your thoughts on my musings in my last blog to you. I know you’re busy...

God wins a good one

David Glaubman — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 03:41:18 GMT

I think it's actually Godwin's Law, after Mike Godwin who propounded it on the WELL some years ago.

Welcome to The Metaverse In response Dear John | Paid Surveys

Welcome to The Metaverse In response Dear John | Paid Surveys — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:12:19 GMT

PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=welcome-to-the-metaverse-in-response-dear-john

Welcome to The Metaverse In response Dear John | pool toys

Welcome to The Metaverse In response Dear John | pool toys — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:04:10 GMT

PingBack from http://pooltoysite.info/story.php?id=6307