thanks

David

As far as legacy code is concerned, one issue that always comes up is data/context dependency. A very typical example of this from Asp.Net is Singeltons that are not defined outside of your web context.
I usually try to work around this by abstracting the dependencies. My most common approach is to abstract dependencies into virtual methods that I override in my tests.

Thanks for the comment. WordPress seemed to think you were spam. I however value your contribution :-)

Yeah, SOA is another label that is probably a bit nebulous and overused, kind of like Business Intelligence (BI) which can mean a lot of different things depending on the context.

Cheers,

Fintan

Calacanis was trying to game Techmeme I believe. I didn’t follow it myself so I can’t be sure.

Here is the old pmarca post:

http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/06/why_theres_no_s.html

Take care. :-)

Thanks for the comment.

First of all I don’t take myself too seriously at all. I’m well aware that the site I used to generate the graphic is a Web 2.0 backlash and, in fairness I realise that a lot of the use of “2.0″ around these days is intended to be satirical. In fact I have some posts lined up which ape that theme.

Some of its use definitely isn’t satirical though. The point I was making – and it comes from personal experience – is that far too many people are using Web 2.0 as a label to describe something specific (“we are the web 2.0 design company”, “I’m doing a web 2.0 site”, “we need to be Web 2.0!”) when it was never intended as such.

I didn’t take Jason Calacanis’s comment as a joke – nor the many commentators who had a go at him over it. He may have had his tongue in one cheek but from my reading he was trying to find a definition for Web 3.0. Are we to always have to move in version numbers or can’t we just let the use of the web evolve as it so obviously has done? You make a very good point yourself in saying that a lot of what people are calling “Web 2.0″ has been around since before the term was coined.

Incidentally, with regards to Lunch 2.0 (and Curry 2.0 which has happened at least once here in Dublin) I happen to think that a lot of the networking/unconference stuff going on these days is really great, I’m a fan of it and a participant. However I’m not a fan of mumbo jumbo like “lunch as a conversation”. Personally I think that’s taking things too seriously but perhaps that was meant as a joke too. :-)

Cheers,

Fintan

The site you used to generate your graphic, Lunch 2.0 (which I do), Web 3.0 (a joke by Calcanis), etc. are all Web 2.0 backlash. Not too hard to determine.

It’s not like those of us who’ve been doing this Web 2.0/Ajax/whatever since 2000 (or earlier in the case of some of my peers) don’t realize what’s going on and haven’t thought the exact same thing as you. In fact, Marc Andreessen has a famous writeup about this when he started up his blog.

Take care,

terry

“It’s probably one of the most overused and misapplied marketing labels I’ve ever come across in my experience in the software industry.”

Not sure about that. What about SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture)? :-)

Regards,

Tony.

Thanks for the comment. My real fear is that as with the fall-out in the wake of the dot com crash, companies that are closely associated with “Web 2.0″ will suffer badly from negative sentiment if it does go badly sour. Even if you didn’t suffer, if you branded yourself with 2.0 you’d just have to re-brand yourself again to get rid of it :-)

Cheers,

Fintan