On 26 July 2011 02:07, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26/07/2011, at 1:33 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> On 25 July 2011 16:16, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 26/07/2011, at 12:03 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>> >>> Interestingly that many today's trendy and popular things (which we >>> know today as web) were invented as a temporary solution without any >>> systematic approach. >>> I think that i will be right by saying that most of these technologies >>> (like PHP, Javascript, Ruby, Sendmail etc) is a result of random >>> choice instead making planning and a deep study of problem field >>> before doing anything. >>> And that's why no surprise, they are failing to grow. >>> And now, people trying to fill the gaps in those technologies with >>> security, scalability and so on.. Because they are now well >>> established standards.. while originally was not meant to be used in >>> such form from the beginning. >>> >>> >>> Wow... really? PHP, JavaScript, Ruby and Sendmail are the result of random >>> choice? >> >> Random. Because how something , which was done to satisfy minute needs >> (i wanna script some interactions, so lets do it quick), >> could grow into something mature without solid foundation? >> If conceptual flaw is there from the very beginning, how you can "fix" it? >> >> Here what author says about JS: >> >> JS had to “look like Java” only less so, be Java’s dumb kid brother or >> boy-hostage sidekick. Plus, I had to be done in ten days or something >> worse than JS would have happened >> Brendan Eich >> > > Except that JavaScript is one of the only common popular prototype based > object oriented languages, which it turns out is an amazingly flexible > system. I don't think this is random. Maybe rushed is what you mean here. >
I would say rushed and then got in wrong hands. Thankfully, today things much better. > Apart from this, Ruby was DEFINITELY not random, or rushed. It's a delicate > balance between form and pragmatic functionality. I'll grant you that the > internals of the standard interpreter leave a lot to be desired, but I think > this is perhaps less to do with randomness and more to do with the fact that > perhaps Matz was entirely out of his depth when it came to "best of breed" > for internal language structuring. > You lost me here. My attitude to Ruby is same as to Perl: lets take bit from here, bit from there, mix well everything and voila! , we having new programming language. It may be good for cooking recipe, but definitely not very good for programming language. I find it strange that many today's mainstream languages evolution is driven by taking same approach: mix & blend things together, rather than focusing on completeness, conciseness and clarity. Like introducing generics in Java and C#.. oh yeah.. what a excellent present for C++ programmers who miss it so bad! Now they can do mess with beloved templates not only in C++ but also in Java and C#. And now a learning curve for those language became even steppier. But who cares, right? Since new "features" likely will increase sales :) > I think to say that these languages served as a temporary solution is not > really very fair on most of them. PHP was basically designed to be an easy > way to build dynamic web pages, and popularity drove it to where it is today. > > I guess where you're coming from is you're attempting to say that none of > these languages are being used for what they were originally designed for... > possibly (I'd put my weight on saying hopefully) with the exception of Ruby, > because Ruby was designed to be beautiful to code in, and to make programmers > happy. Ruby is a general purpose language. I really don't know why you > include Sendmail in this bunch. > > I think you're kind of missing the point of the web not being structured > properly, though... I think Alan's point is more the case that the fact that > we had to use server side languages, as well as languages such as VBScript > and JavaScript which the interpreter executes, is an illustration of the fact > that STRUCTURALLY, the web is fairly broken. It has nothing to do with > language choice (server- or client-side), really, but rather the fact that > there is no set of conventions and readily usable standard for programming > across the web in such a way that code is run in a protected way on machines > where code needs to run. > Yes, i found it strange, that on server side we're using one language, while at client side another. It means that people have to learn at least two languages for getting started. I find it really strange that javascript found its niche only in web browsers. And virtually nowhere else. Is it too bad as general-purpose programming language? Because given the situation, it suspiciously looks like that: we're forced to use it, because it is the only language supported by modern browsers. > I think as computer programmers, we get quite hung up on the specifics of > languages and other potentially somewhat irrelevant details when perhaps > they're not the most apposite concerns to be interested in. > > >> Apparently a missing systematical approach then strikes back, once it >> deployed, became popular and used by millions.. >> >> >>> Javascript, PHP, Ruby and Sendmail failing to grow? Seriously? What do you >>> mean by grow? It can't surely be popularity... >> >> Grow not in popularity of course. >> Grow in serving our needs. > > Perhaps you miss the point of why things become large and popular...? :) > They're driven by people. And not just some people - by *most* people. > Everybody wants to share photos and search for things on the web. Everyone > wants their content, and purchases, and the things they want. > > These people do not care about structural perfection in any way. They care > about doing the things they want to do and naught else. > > Look at Apple if you want to understand a group of people who "get" this (or > maybe only Steve gets this, I don't really know, but I do know someone at > Apple fully understand this, and possibly Apple *didn't* understand this when > Steve wasn't there). The only way you can drive the future is if you get > everyone to come along with you. > > The only way you can get everyone to come along with you is to play to their > understanding level. You make the general lives of everyone on the planet > easier, and you will become popular. > Well, i don't like when a programming is turned into a pop culture. However it is mostly a reality today. For things we buy, things we use ( i mean end-user products) it is perfectly fine: i don't care who/how my microwave is working as long as it does it job well. But for programming its a bit different: you giving to people a tool which they will use to craft their own products. And depending on how good/bad this tool are, the end product's quality will vary. And also, it would be too good to be true: if people would have to choose between java and smalltalk based on "easy to use" criteria, i doub't they would choose java. Marketing takes its toll, the worse one. :) Maybe the days of inventing new languages by scientists are gone, i don't know. If you take a language and start pumping "popular" things into it because crowd likes it, how far you can go? Up to the point that it would take 10 years to learn all language aspects? Up to the point that you cannot state definitive set of a syntax rules for your language (read Ruby)? > Say, for example, like making a telephone that is vastly more easy to use > than all other telephones on the planet. Now, for tech geeks, it's not really > *that* much easier to use... For example, when the iPhone came out, I got > one, and the only really useful and different thing in terms of technical > specification and features that I could do that I previously couldn't do > easily was synchronise my contacts... but everything was quite a bit EASIER > to do. In the process, Apple are pushing next gen technologies (next gen for > the public is not necessarily next gen for us, mind :)). Mind you, it comes > wrapped around their bank account, but it's still coming. > > Look at Twitter for an example of what people like... this is a ridiculously > clear example... it simply allows people to write small messages to whoever > is listening. Brilliantly simple, brilliantly clear. Most people want to do > this, and so it is popular. The thing with twitter is, though, they're not > using this popularity at all. They don't really know what to do with it. > > Now, what we want to do is make something compelling enough such that it > "goes off like a rocket". Smalltalk was designed pretty amazingly well, and > it had an amazingly large amount of influence, but if you ask most > programmers what smalltalk is, they usually haven't heard of it... contrast > this to asking people about Java, and they know what that is. :) You even ask > them what Object Oriented programming is, and they know that, but you say > "Heard of Alan Kay?" and they give you a blank look. Ask them about Steve > Jobs and everyone knows all about him. Hell, what other company has fanboys > keeping track of their ADS? ( > http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/24/new-apple-ipad-ad-well-always/ ) > > What I'm trying to get at here, is that I see no reason why something free > can't be popular (facebook? twitter?), but for that to take place, it has to > provide something that you simply can't get elsewhere. The advantage the web > has had is that it has moved quite quickly and continues to move at whatever > pace we like to go at. Nothing else has come along that has outpaced or out > innovated it FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE AVERAGE PUNTER. So what is needed > is something along the lines of Frank, which when people see what is possible > (BY USING IT ONLY, I'd wager), they'll stop using everything else because > they simply can't go back to "the old way" because it feels like the past too > much. :) > > Make something better than all the user or developer experiences out there, > and developers like me will evangelise the shit out of it... and other users > who care about things will jump on the bandwagon, curators of experience will > jump on board, and overnight, a Windows 95 like experience will happen (in > terms of market share effect), or perhaps an iPod effect will happen. > Remember, it has to be "just better" than what is possible now, so if you > make something "infinitely better" but just show off how it's "just better", > and also make it easy to migrate to and easier to use, then you will have > already "won" as the new way of doing things before you've started. > > Even Apple, our current purveyors of "fine user experience" and curators of > style and design, haven't managed to build a device or user experience in > software that allows primarily convention, ease of use and unclutteredness, > and yet then the total ability to configure things for people who want things > to do exactly what they want them to do (ie coders, programmers, and advanced > users). They hit the "80/20" rule quite well in terms of giving 80 percent of > people everything they need, while leaving 20% of people sort of out in the > cold. > I don't think its a good to drive an analogy between end product and tool(s). The main difference between them lies in the fact that tools are made for professionals, while end products are made for everyone. You don't have to graduate college to know how to use microwave, you just need to read a short instruction. Professionals who basing their choice on popularity are bad professionals, the good ones basing their choice on quality of tools. Because everyone knows that popularity has a temporary effect. Something which is popular today, will be forgotten tomorrow. People jumping into Apple's bandwagon.. but what future are there? None. Sealed platform, proprietary hadrware, ridiculous and over-protective rules for entering the market. So, it is easy to predict the outcome: the days of iWhatever is counted. For those who thinks that i'm soothsaying - see what happened with Sun and what happens with Microsoft. If Apple will keep doing things in same way, there is no other end. So, it is maybe great that they can make a lot of money today. And then another company will arise and start making money. And again and again, people will jump into the wagon once a while. And repeat same mistakes. But who cares, since it brings us money, today and a little bit for tomorrow :) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
