On 10/25/04 2:18 AM, "Pascal Costanza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a typical story. Why do people take successful systems in >> Lisp (or Smalltalk, or ...) and rewrite them in much more boring and less >> powerful languages? We need to understand this if we want to make the world >> safe for powerful languages. > > Because they make uninformed decisions. ... > > Edi Weitz from Hamburg asked for Lisp programmers one or two years ago > in comp.lang.lisp if people were interested to move to Hamburg for > continuing a Lisp job in case he is hit by a bus. He has gotten about 15 > responses from all over the world, which convinced his client to indeed > use Lisp for a project. > > We Lispers and Smalltalkers tend to argue from technical grounds and the > technical advantages of our preferred languages over other languages. > However, these decisions are typically based purely on grounds of > popularity (because they presumably get more - think "cheaper" - > programmers then). Because of that we have to think on two levels at the > same time, the technical and the social level. We foremostly have to > provide new arguments on the latter, the former is already set. I agree, the main reasons these languages aren't used are social rather than technical. Programmers must become more aware of social factors. -Ralph Johnson _______________________________________________ patterns-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion
