you're being unnecessarily literal- we can use variable values for "perfect", most of which are clearly better than the system explained in the article.
but, if we must be so literal, i'd say you're not using your imagination. you think a literally perfect architecture is impossible? some systems are very small, you know.
that all said- they never even concretely suggested one existed in the first place. you could infer a hypothetical from their post.
I don't think that helps. I think that, if you use variable values for "perfect", and you turn the value down to the point where you start getting systems (more than one) that are considered perfect, then by that time you get some that come from corporations, and some that don't.
I think jordanlev is committing the opposite fallacy of the one RyanZAG made. RyanZAG said "companies have produced badly-architected dreck", which is true but doesn't disprove jordanlev's point. But jordanlev looks at web standards and says "open standards can only produce dreck", which is also logically wrong.
As a minimum level of validation for jordanlev's position, I'd like to see someone name the systems that corporations have produced that are above the standard of perfection that has ever been achieved by open standards.
hey, i never said i could prove he was right. :) you make a great point.
edit: i assume his point could be better articulated as "open standards have only produced dreck".
which leads back to my original post: "to counter, you'd need to find an example of a perfectly architected system developed as an open standard by multiple companies".
but, if we must be so literal, i'd say you're not using your imagination. you think a literally perfect architecture is impossible? some systems are very small, you know.
that all said- they never even concretely suggested one existed in the first place. you could infer a hypothetical from their post.