Hi, I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80%
It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :) Cheers, Doru On 2 Dec 2010, at 03:49, [email protected] wrote: > 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..." >>> > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
