On Monday 16 April 2001 19:57, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
Not, ironically enough, the two "tinySelf" implementations I did.
Interesting, what was your primary goal?
I had two goals - to study how a parallel version of Self could be made compatible with the sequential one and to move as much of the implementation as possible into Self. The "tiny" was there just in case somebody complained that something was missing :-)
Define "people". [...]
10% of the developers in one of the top 5 application spaces - desktop, web, servers, embedded, OS
Ok, my point was that this varies with time. The same people who are 40% of the developers in some area today could be just 6% in that same area in five years (if the area is not growing, it probably isn't worth me worrying about it). I have found it nearly impossible to change people's minds, to "covert" them. So I focus on the newcomers knowing that some day they will be the majority. Of course, these newcomers usually look to the people I am ignoring for advice and direction :-(
In my experience, most developers find Smalltalk style code very difficult to read.
That is very interesting to know. What is their background, in general?
If this is true, then you have to be very careful about prioritizing which innovations you choose to visibly employ if you care about making something that "changes the world".
I would say that neither Java nor JavaScript were accepted because of what they were (unlike Perl or Python) but because of who was pushing them (Netscape, in both instances). The same thing will make C# have its place in the sun no matter what.
The problem with your theory is that many innovations work much better together than in isolation.
-- Jecel
On Tuesday, April 17, 2001, at 11:33 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
Define "people". [...]
10% of the developers in one of the top 5 application spaces - desktop, web, servers, embedded, OS
Ok, my point was that this varies with time. The same people who are 40% of the developers in some area today could be just 6% in that same area in five years (if the area is not growing, it probably isn't worth me worrying about it). I have found it nearly impossible to change people's minds, to "covert" them...
Right, that's the problem I'm getting at. It seems there's so many great technologies/ideas that sit on the shelf because inventors don't understand marketing. It's been said that in engineering there are no technical problems, only people problems. For those of us that want to see the innovations of Smalltalk and Self in widespread use, our biggest problem isn't technological. It's figuring out how to get people to use new technologies.
In my experience, most developers find Smalltalk style code very difficult to read.
That is very interesting to know. What is their background, in general?
C, C++, Java or JavaScript. (I think most developers have such a background.)
If this is true, then you have to be very careful about prioritizing which innovations you choose to visibly employ if you care about making something that "changes the world".
I would say that neither Java nor JavaScript were accepted because of what they were (unlike Perl or Python) but because of who was pushing them (Netscape, in both instances).
That's a good point. But then you have to ask, why where those choices made by Netscape or Sun, etc?
The problem with your theory is that many innovations work much better together than in isolation.
I think it depends on your market. If you're after the .01% of developers that are into neat new things, then packaging more neat new things makes sense. But if it were your goal is to change the world(in your case it isn't), you may be after the wrong market. It might inspire the folks who do change things, but those changes may only be accepted in a piece meal way anyways and not in order of importance.
As examples consider the Alto vs the Mac or the Newton vs. the Palm.
Steve
self-interest@lists.selflanguage.org
-
Jecel Assumpcao Jr -
Steve Dekorte