>> 1) Replacing the ugliness of explicit J would draw them in further.
... but the explicit J is beautiful. : is a just another conjunction, I think that is pretty cool. http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d310n.htm On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Don Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alan, > > I am calling you as a witness for the defense of my case. > > You said: > >> I also thought about my own reluctance >> to use J in my professional environment (financial). >> >> One of the main reasons for our not using J in my company is that the >> adoption and usage rate is so low, > > Aren't you supporting my argument? The reason a system spreads is that > it has champions who fight for it. Where are the champions of J who are > fighting for it. If you won't, surely you are telling me that you don't > believe in it. > > You said: > >> How can I commit company resources to a development environment that >> requires specialists to do development, or, alternatively, requires my >> existing Java, ObjC, Python, and Ruby developers to spend considerable >> amount of time learning J just to become productive? > > Wouldn't it be beneficial to have a development requirement that could > be used by those who weren't specialists? > > You said: > >> And, once >> having become productive in J, are now even more critical than they >> used to be, which is not a healthy thing for any company. > > If there is nothing wrong with J, why are experienced users more > critical than new users? > > You said: > >> The problem of J's low level of adoption and usage is like the problem >> of esperanto. It is a perfectly logical, artificial language, but one >> which almost no one uses. The reason no one uses esperanto, is >> because it is not integrated into any culture, as are all native >> languages. > > Alternatively, by choosing a popular (e.g., Ruby) development >> environment, with its very high levels of adoption and usage, it's >> large library of packages ("gems"), and correspondingly large >> development pool, I can find more Ruby developers quickly, at lower >> cost than I could for J. > > Into what culture was Ruby integrated (say) 20 years ago when J > was already available? > > You said: > >> Get people using J's easy calculator-like features, and gradually, >> more and more people will begin discovering its other features. > > Isn't that what I am saying? But I am also saying that: > > 1) Replacing the ugliness of explicit J would draw them in further. > 2) A more integrated J would make the move to tacit J a much > easier task. > >> And, if there's a J platform on lots of computers and PDAs, then >> developers will build more J packages to solve problems so that users >> do not even need to know that much about the J language itself, just >> use it as a platform. > >> This is how you create demand, and lower the barriers to adoption and >> usage. > > I totally agree. > > Don > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
