The weak spot in your argument is that you use the worst example you can choose to prove it.
Ruby. Ruby has two big issues for your line of arguments. First its popularity was build by a single man. A nomad. His name is David Heinemeier Hansson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Heinemeier_Hansson>. He is the guy behind that library you probably know as "Ruby on Rails". Not only he created that library alone, not only that library is the single reason why Ruby is so popular, though personally I would not call it a popular language, but he also did not allow people to commit to his code for a single year before opening up the project to external commits. A true nomad if you ask me. The second issue is that you use Ruby as an example language that does not care about design and cool ideas, which is kinda strange if you think about how much Ruby copies from smalltalk. Actually I would even argue that Ruby is more smalltalk than even objective c. But further more its not hard to find evidence of the contributions of nomads to our society, whether you learn about Einstein, Newton , Socrtates etc. Our western civilization is based on the effort of individuals that worked alone, "standing on the shoulder of giants" , but alone none the less and they did not only succeed but carried modern civilisation to what we take today for granted (and we should not). Codings of course is no exception. So even though I acknowledge the huge importance of teamwork , cooperation and competition, I am also perfectly capable of seeing nomads as something vastly more than people living in mud huts. I also dont share your optimism that an "idea" / "design orientated" coder will have any problem materialising his dream software in the "abomination" language called C++ . As a matter of fact tons of great software with gorgeous design that people highly praise has been built in this language. For me one such thing is the QT framework for which Pharo has no alternative that can approach it even in the distance of 100 light years. And believe me I am Noooooooo fan of C++. Like you I love Pharo, but unlike you I dont think I will live long enough to see Pharo used by 1 million people. But it is one of those things I will be very glad to be wrong about. It would be great to have something like QT for Pharo , or other great libraries. But even if Pharo remains small , no regrets , I love it and I will keep coding in it. But then I dont see Pharo as neither the Blue , or the Red, or the Pink pill. Is just another tool with advantages and disadvantages. A personal choice that I dont try to impose to others as "better". On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > kilon.alios wrote > > I do agree, that nomads do not build cathedrals but there is the flip > side > > of the coin, why one would want to be a nomad and the great benefits > > coming > > with being a nomad > > > > Guido the creator of python explains it from the side of the Python > > Standard library but I think it applies fine for Pharo too > > Cathedral to me means architecture i.e. the application of forethought and > understanding to make the most beautiful, functional structure in the most > efficient way VS. nomads slapping together temporary mud huts that can be > abandoned and easily rebuilt elsewhere in better conditions. This is > orthogonal to the also-important issue that rigidity often accompanies a > large user-base. > > One could have a beautiful cathedral that is frequented only by the > faithful, and not turned into a tourist attraction like Notre Dame or Il > Duomo di Firenze. Steph often says that if we were looking to be famous, > we'd be programming in Ruby ;) Conversely, one could have a mud hut that > becomes a historic landmark or revered for it's earthly charm, and can > never > be improved. > > And as for popularity = rigidity, that's certainly true for languages taken > up by pop culture. That is because of one of Alan Kay's frequent > observations - that nearly everyone is driven by utility, with only a tiny > minority concerned inherently with ideas. Once people are programming a > language because that's the language "you're supposed to use" - like C++ or > Ruby - the utilitarianists flock in, and, because they are concerned only > with its usefulness, they will not tolerate much disturbance due to > "beauty", "design", or other intangibles. > > But, who says we have to go there? I for one am not interested in that > game. > One estimate says there are 18.5 million software developers in the world > [1]. I don't remember the exact percentage of inherent-idea people, but > let's be extremely conservative and say 5% (I think it was much higher). > That gives us 0.05 x 18.5M = 925,000 potential Pharo users that would revel > in the idea of an infinite game pursuing a beautiful, simple liberator of > human expression; and therefore willing to tolerate and adapt themselves to > the inevitable change, just like we all do now. > > Now, here's the important thing to remember... As we get more popular, the > above plan will leave over 17,500,000 potential complainers to potentially > distract and discourage us! > > These are the challenges of those who dare to venture into the Blue Plane, > but isn't it a beautiful game?! > > [1] > > http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/european-technology/there-are-185-million-software-developers-in-the-world-but-which-country-has-the-most/ > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Slides-from-the-Pharo-Status-talk-at-FOSDEM-2015-tp4803290p4803407.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
