Edited ... oops curly { on a url doesn't make it look like a url 🙁

Jeff, you're sounding (reading?) almost as jaded as I am.

However, quoting from our esteemed editor where this list started, "I'd have to say that it's when you see a decent future in the new technology. When it appears that others have proven savings, like a task takes less time or you get better performance."

I'm not sure anyone could prove that that MVS wasn't just the coolest and fastest aproach to re-entrent program execution ever. But that just didn't cut the mustard 'cos MSFT had better marketing for a ***-awful OS and and compilers that worked most of the time.

In all my time with IBM systems I once found a genuine bug with the PL/I compiler.

And for those nerds, who had an anti-M$FT fixation then Linux was the coolest thing out, it just could never support as much hardware as MSFT could, ... oh, maybe that's why MSFT were charging for their products, 'cos they would actually run on just about any hardware on the planet .. well,well, never did think that was a problem until I bought a chinese knockoff of ...

Oops, off the subject. The best marketing wins, not the best technical solution.

I'm sort of hoping that .net (based around c# not vb or x#, he,he) and sql server are going to have the best marketing around 'cos I've sure as hell invested a lot of my life in what I consider a technically very good set of solutions, leaving aside some of the aberrations like asp.net mvc where a forced solution to bad programming has introduced some really weird results. Maybe not wrong, just weird.

And these solutions are evolving very quickly on both a technical language path and a hardware implementaion path, so let's be vveerryy careful about what we define as less time to get better performance.

How many times has everyone out there seen a solution that make the simple stuff simpler but the hard stuff harder.

http://www.artima.com/intv/simplexity.html

When you take something incredibly complex and try to wrap it in something simpler, you often just shroud the complexity. You don't actually design a truly simple system. And in some ways you make it even more complex, because now the user has to understand what was omitted that they might sometimes need. That's simplexity.

- Anders Hejlsberg, Lead C# architect