> I am calling you as a witness for the defense of my case.
Don,
Perhaps it was not clear from my writing. I am in agreement with the
idea that, in order for J to have more adoption and usage, it needs to
be evangelized better: more frequently and to more people.
I am not in agreement with the idea that the best way to increase
adoption and usage is to change the syntax of the language, or make an
easier version.
I think the best ways to increase adoption and usage of J is:
a. get J in front of more people:
1. K-12
2. college
b. improve the availability of J on more devices, including popular
handhelds.
1. iPhone
2. WindowsCE devices
3. Palm devices
4. iPhone
c. evangelize JAL more
It takes me two clicks to get to JAL from jsoftware.com.
It should be easier and more obvious.
It may be worth considering creating a "J-Forge.org" domain
(like SourceForge or RubyForge) to increase exposure.
The idea is to kindle the "network effect".
d. Provide standard J package templates
so developers do not have to work so hard to create solutions
e. provide solutions, using J packages, to certain vertical markets:
1. financial (portfolio & trading analysis)
2. insurance (actuarial analysis)
3. educational (see #1 above)
i. teaching math to K-6
ii. teaching algebra, finance, physics and geometry to 9-10
grades
iii. teaching calculus, finance, physics to 11-12 grades
4. home economics:
i. checkbook balancing
ii. tracking and reducing debt
iii. recipe management
iv. diet and calorie management
v. painting calculator
[a] through [e] is a lot of work, but with interested J experts, and a
standard template for packages, it should be possible to tackle the
problem by distributing it ("many hands make light work").
It is my opinion that these kinds of efforts will go much further and
faster to increasing adoption and usage than creating a special mode
of J that has different syntax.
> Aren't you supporting my argument? The reason a system spreads is
> that
> it has champions who fight for it.
I do agree that J's adoption and usage is low, but, there are a LOT of
reasons why a system spreads, only one which one is that there are
evangelists.
>> 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?
By "critical", I meant important to the success of the company, and
their potential subsequent absence (for any reason) more harmful.
>
> 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.
I do not agree that J is ugly.
> 2) A more integrated J would make the move to tacit J a much
> easier task.
I do not know what you mean by "more integrated J".
I think J's current syntax is fine. I understand it. I struggle with
understanding some phrases, but not the syntax only the semantics.
I do not think that changing J's syntax will help me choose to use it
at work.
I do think that having a larger community of users, and more useful
packages, will help me change that decision.
I do agree with your idea of putting J in front of younger people
while teaching them stuff is a good one.
I think we should try to create educational packages for many areas,
not just math. I think math is underrated in how useful it is in too
many other areas (this is not a J problem, per sé, but it is an area
where J could help).
Thanks for prompting an interesting discussion, and the opportunity
for me to clarify my own thinking about it.
--
Alan Stebbens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
