In related news: "Vitamin Water" outsells Laurent-Perrier vintage Rosé "Turkey ham" outsells Jamón Serrano Pre-cut sandwich-size processed cheese squares outsell Parmigiano Reggiano Wal-mart sells more suits than both Paul Smith and Armani combined McDonalds outsell every Michelin-starred restaurant, ever Cattle-class outsell first-class plane tickets by a wide margin 160Kbps MP3s outsell both FLAC and AAC lossless recordings Apple headphones seen in many more train carriages than Shure 535s Crickets and mealworms make up less that 0.01% of protein consumption in the US, mechanically-recovered connective tissue continues to be more popular.
Is it really fair to say that outside of academia, that only way we compare things is on the basis of popularity or profitability? My experience in so many things is that the better option is the LESS popular one. Sometimes this is down to cost, but just as often it's simply resistance to change and fear-aversion. And cost really isn't an issue in most non-Microsoft programming languages, even operational costs are zero when changing from Java to something else on the same VM. p.s. Yes, I have eaten insects. They're very healthy, and taste a bit like prawns or popcorn, depending on the insect and how it's cooked. On 2 October 2012 22:12, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:03:23 +0200, Simon Ochsenreither < > [email protected]**> wrote: > > After reading that response I'm not sure whether you have actually read >> what I wrote. >> Most of the stuff you say was actually explicitly addressed in my comment >> already and some of the stuff is more or less beating down a straw man >> build up from things I never said. >> >> Isn't it quite ironic that people claim that Java is the more "academic" >> ecosystem, when – as soon as some technical points are brought up – >> someone >> immediately attacks with the same, sore, old >> business-pov/popularity/from-**authority response? >> > > It's not an attack: it's the reality check that says that in academia you > discuss about what's the better technology on paper, outside academia you > discuss about what's the better technology in the sense that sells more. > Nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I'm still amazed by the fact that, if > I was in your side, I'd be the first to ask myself: hell, but given that > "my" stuff is better, why isn't selling more? Instead, I don't see the > question, I don't see the answer and only the reiteration about that > technology is still the better one. > > For the record I've read your whole post twice, and it was long - with a > reason, because you had many points - mine is shorter, that is just a > couple of questions, did you read them? You're not answering, might I know > why? :-) > > -- Kevin Wright mail: [email protected] gtalk / msn : [email protected] quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda <[email protected]> twitter: @thecoda vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright steam: kev_lee_wright "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
