Felix Salmon dismisses the effect of loan subsidies on rising tuition costs by pointing out that the loans get repaid with interest, so that means it is not a subsidy. Besides being a very weak argument, whether or not it is labeled a subsidy is immaterial. It is credit which allows people to pay more. Without a cap, colleges wouldn't be able to charge as much, and hire so many useless administrators. The cost of college is out of control. Watching the online disruption is fun. Would love to find a way to get more involved....
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Reading this semi-widely shared piece by Damon Krukowski- I really think the analogy is wrong. Pandora is like having your song played on the radio, not like selling 7" of vinyl. When I buy a piece of vinyl, I can listen to it as many times as I want, or at least until the grooves run down. He tries to compare the royalty for 7,000 plays of a track on Pandora to 7,000 sales of a single?? It's more like a radio station with 7,000 listeners playing it once. How much is Galaxie 500 making in radio royalties? I haven't heard them on the radio for 15 years. They should be comparing their $1.21 to $0.00.
Posted by Matt McKnight at 11:37 PM
Friday, October 05, 2012
Should the domain model be separate from the serialization format? For example, if you are using something like Avro or Thrift as your serialization format, does it make sense to have all of the objects in your domain modeled as objects generated by these technologies or is better to just model them as Plain Old Java Objects and then find a way to serialize those?
This question has recently come up, and I find it reminiscent of the older question of whether your XML data model should be your domain model or whether your database model should your domain model. The basic difference effect of using this pure data model approach is that you end up with classes that do not contain any behavior- basically structs. In the other case, you end up with objects that have both data and behaviors that depend on that data. The additional wrinkle is that generating classes from schema, be it thrift, Avro, ProtocolBuffers or XML adds the additional wrinkle of working with generated code. You typically don't modify generated code, so this can make adding methods, functions, etc. to this data a little challenging.
There is a great body of knowledge out there that supports not putting a dependency in your code on a particular technology implementation. In particular, modeling your domain effectively and independent of other components follows a lot of solid principles, and lets you pursue a domain driven design. The opposite, an Anemic Domain Model has its limitations- a procedural design, generally missing out on OO.
The first "depends" I would consider is the programming paradigm. If you are working in a functional programming paradigm, not just a procedural one, for example in a language like Clojure, separating data model from behavior is a natural pattern. Many of the object oriented advantages to a rich domain model simply do not apply. If you are working in an object oriented paradigm, for example in a language like Java, it makes more sense to put the behavior with the data.
These are still generalities though. Generated code is less of a challenge in languages other than Java. Some languages, such as C#, allow partial classes, so you can combine generated code with code that you write in the same class. Dynamically typed languages like Ruby provide a lot of flexibility, so having model classes that are generated by a framework like ActiveRecord, or a pattern like Active Record)is not a problem, because the classes contain no code.
The question then comes up of things like the Hadoop MapReduce framework. While your code may be in Java, the programming paradigm of map reduce is functional. (Some would even say that it is giving us an opportunity to get away from the object oriented programming model- and that it is sad that we produce CompSci graduates that only know Java.) Thus the benefits of having behavior associated with your objects is greatly reduced.
However, in the particular case we are considering, we are not just working in MapReduce, we have a number of application layers that can use the domain object. We are working in Java, so we can't do a lot of cute things with partial classes or mixins. We do want to use Avro as a serialization format though, so there is some momentum for using that as the medium of our domain model. It forces a certain weakness into our domain model, and an awkwardness to our programming. It is not as noticeable when writing functional style Map Reduce code, but it is quite noticeable when we try to abstract behavior such as validation and mapping operations that naturally go on the model. We can get something close to the
Of course, if we go to a more pure, POJO domain model, it then becomes a little more tricky to go in reverse and make the serialization occur with Avro. Still thinking on this one...
Posted by Matt McKnight at 5:05 PM
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
The patent system, and intellectual property rights claims in general, are out of control. You may think I am referring to the current Apple v. Samsung case where the invention of the rectangle is in question. I am actually more concerned about the White v. Heinz case. We get no benefit from allowing these independent inventors to hold companies who came up with the same idea hostage...just as we get no benefit from more organized patent trolls. It's a game lawyers are playing to exploit the legal system to take money from people. I came home yesterday and my daughter had created a shop for Patented fashion designs, along with a licensing scheme if you actually wanted to make it. The sewing machine was sitting there unused. The designs were great though, but the inspiration was clear. I guess Everything is a Remix.
Posted by Matt McKnight at 5:00 PM