Platform Mobility is the "next big thing"

-

Designing for change

I often get into discussions with architects that turn a little bit into "platform/language" shootouts. Moreover this can leak into business meetings where folks start to sound like elementary school students bragging about how "my dad can beat up your dad". The reality is, however, that the lifetime of a platform's relevance is roughly around 5 years....business (especially digital business) evolves and changes so rapidly that the cost to switch becomes an overarching theme when thinking about the "big picture".

How I think about software platforms I'll call it the "mike system"

  1. how hard is it to get onboard?
  2. How hard will it be to get offboard in 3-5 years?
  3. Everything else (functionality, scalability, performance...)

Why is onboarding ease important? Well, because if it takes 3 years to set up, you'll be on to your next platform before you can realize value from this one.

Why is offboarding ease important? Same thing...if it takes 3 years to migrate off your current platform you'll not be able to reduce the negative impact of your legacy platform.

What about everything else? Well, truth be told, for any solution in the "general purpose" catgory of problems...like ecommerce, contennt management, generic integrations, there are already a large and every growing number of tools/platforms that can get the job done quite well.

So, unless you're building an avionics system (in which case you should probably build it yourself) or some sort of life critical system (same thing), go find a commodity product that meets your cost/benefit goals and stop thinking it's "strategic".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules ...
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u...
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa...
Read more