On 26/07/2011, at 12:20 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> 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. :)
But they *did* choose Java over smalltalk precisely because it's easier to use.
You make the mistake of assuming easier to use between experts, but that's not
how people adopt languages.
One of the reasons Rails became an overnight success for the Ruby and web
development communities is because of a 15 minute blog screencast... and a
bunch of simple evangelizing the creator of Rails did... he basically showed
how easy it was to create a Blog in 15 minutes with comments... Mind you it
wasn't a particularly beautiful Blog, but it functioned, nonetheless, and the
kicker is...
... it was about twice as easy, twice as fast, and twice as nice to code than
in any other comparative programming environment at the time.
People adoped Java because it was readily available to learn, and easy to
"grok" in comparison with what they knew, and because it had "spunk" in the
same way that Rails did - it had an attitude, and was perceived as a funky
thing. This has to do with marketing and the way our society works. SmallTalk,
is incredibly simple, incredibly powerful, but also INCREDIBLY unapproachable
for most people not welcoming to abstract thought.
Contrast that it took me weeks to understand SmallTalk when I first saw it -
even vaguely understand I mean - but it only took me days to understand Java,
given that I'd programmed in Basic and C before.
This has to do with the sub-cultural context more than anything.
Julian.
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
