[self-interest] Re: An OO history

Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel at merlintec.com
Tue Apr 17 18:33:04 UTC 2001

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

More information about the Self-interest mailing list