Em 01/12/2010 18:50, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> escreveu: > Hi, > I think I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with it > :).
Fair enough! During a debate automatic agreement would not lead to an enriched vision of the problem and more often than not would diverge from the truth :-) > Moose is a valuable platform exactly because it is built in > Smalltalk. I understand this is the sentiment about Smalltalk. Also, giving the project is 13+ years old makes me assume it has started in a different dialect of Smalltalk than Pharo. > Developers understand the power of Smalltalk in the > context of Moose quite quickly after they do a couple of > tutorials. The key here, I think, is "in the context of Moose". In my opinion the litmus test for this would be evaluating how many projects _not_ related to Moose are started in Smalltalk after this exposition occurred. > The result is that they end up wanting to learn > Smalltalk. Which per se is an interesting achievement. However, we need it go beyond the wanting to learn to the opportunity to be the implementation language of some new projects in their realms. > In fact, I argued for quite a while that vendors should use Moose > to promote Smalltalk. The cool thing about it is that it addresses > directly programmers that develop in all sorts of languages > (especially Java). This gives us a nice back door. I think again this is a variation of theme I mentioned in the earlier post. The same has been said about Seaside, or other projects which I perceive as successful as Moose (and written in Smalltalk, of course)! I'm afraid we're missing something essential on this: what problem Pharo (or more generally Smalltalk) addresses better in the enterprise than other technologies? If we arrive at some compelling answers to this, then I believe it would be easy to 'sell' Smalltalk. The examples on the successful projects then would serve to reduce the perceived risk of embarking in an imature technology. my 0.019999... Regards, -- Cesar Rabak > Cheers, Doru > > On 28 Nov 2010, at 18:48, [email protected] wrote: > > > Tudor, > > This kind of report shows that Moose is a useful piece of > > software. The interest in Pharo became contingent on the Moose > > technology such as ABAP is 'widespread' in the industry because of > > SAP ERP. > > I think it says a lot about Moose, but is not enough to be a sales > > argument for Pharo. > > This leads to a common fallacy used in marketing: use "X" as all > > successful people use "X" as well..." > >
