The core trouble in my eyes with developing on Domino is that it is unloved for what it is. Not so much by customers (I have no interest in whether companies use Exchange or SharePoint or whatever), but more by IBM. The situation reminds me of Apple with products like WebObjects, Xserve, and Aperture: there's clearly a dedicated and talented team behind it, but the organization's heart isn't in it. The analogy is inexact: first, Apple's overarching motivations and strategies are much easier to grok than IBM's; second, enterprise software never really dies - it just goes all COBOL and lingers in maintenance somewhere forever (did you know OS/2 is still a thing?).

So Domino is still around, and still exists, but is generally positioned as something for large companies to use for mail, or continue using if they happened to start doing so decades ago, or as an adjunct to Connections. But it's like with Lotusphere's rebranding: when (dev conference) + (biz conference) = (biz conference), the algebra to figure out the perceived value of (dev conference) isn't difficult. To a certain extent, this is just how IBM does business: they talk to large organizations' higher-ups and make their sales that way, not by being outwardly compelling. However, on this front, Bluemix's entry has provided a telling counter-example: though there's still the stock over-puffed business page, the bluemix.net site talks directly to developers using a layout and writing style that an actual human being might enjoy. They even have honest-to-goodness Developer Evangelists!

It leaves us, as Domino developers, in an awkward position. We have a full-fledged NoSQL server with an integrated Java dev stack, albeit one without a guiding soul. We have an easy-to-install, flawlessly-clustering, cross-platform server that is perpetually 20% away from being perfect for the modern world. Large portions can be charitably characterized as having been in maintenance mode for a long time: the core API, SSL in all protocols, calendar/contacts connectivity, indexing, the admin client, and so forth. The bad news is easy to perceive: less vendor interest and customers driven primarily by inertia make for a poor career path. But the point of this post isn't doom and gloom! The way I figure it, there are a number of bright sides to explain why I and others continue to develop on this platform:

• There's always a chance that Domino will be less "Xserve" and more "Mac Pro", a product seemingly at death's door for years until it was given a fresh breath of life.
• As Paul Graham pointed out years ago, when you're writing server-run software, you can use whichever platform you'd like. Though, all else being equal, it's nicer to have a popular platform, if you can use the tool to do greater work with your time than you would elsewhere, it's worthwhile.
• Due to Domino's nature, almost all of its (technical) problems are solvable even if IBM never touches it again. Some of them, like the API, are things where the community has already built a workaround. Some, like SSL for HTTP, have seen IBM package their own workaround with the server. And the rest, like NIF and CalDAV/CardDAV support, linger as perfect "if I had time" projects.

The last one is crucial for our position: though a totally unsupported problem would eventually fall prey to incompatibility with newer operating systems and machines, Domino has reached a point in the last couple years (thanks to the extensibility API in 8.5.2 and the vital bug-fixes in 8.5.3 and 9) where it's an agglomeration of replaceable parts. There are enough hooks and APIs to - with varying degrees of difficulty - take advantage of the core strengths of the platform while dramatically improving the components on top. That's not enough to last forever, but it doesn't have to be. Apps built in the mean time will still run and improve, and any time spent programming on the platform is valuable experience that can be applied elsewhere, whether directly or more generally.

Just don't ask about licensing.