> The audience for the Smalltalk-inspired campaign is the other 99% of programmers who would never get past: "Smalltalk = 1980 = dead = not worth checking out".
Never? This is what I've been trying to overcome for the past 5 years with hundreds of blogs. > Have already made up their mind and will not likely be convinced by a > soundbite anyway Agreed. However, hundreds of blogs over 5 years is much more than a "soundbite." I agree that Pharo's current "marketing" strategy is working, if by working you mean slow but steady growth. It may never become as "popular" as, say, Kotlin or Rust. I have a greater ambition for Smalltalk: to restore its popularity from 25 years ago. Or even from just 7 years ago when it was #37 at TIOBE <https://web.archive.org/web/20121215020045/http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html> . (Sadly, today it's not even in the Top 50.) I *believe* Smalltalk can have a bright future. Unfortunately, few people share this sentiment. https://youtu.be/BS_gLFOrjMw Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> pharo is not smalltalk >> TedVanGaalen wrote >>> Pharo IS Smalltalk, whether you like it or not. > > An ancient parable goes... > >> A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had >> been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and >> form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, >> of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it >> they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed >> on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one >> whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another >> person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like >> a >> tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the >> elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. >> The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, >> smooth >> and like a spear. > > And from its Wikipedia article: > >> In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to >> "see" the full elephant. > > TL;DR > > Two parts of the same elephant: > 1. Pharo is Smalltalk (in the sense that St-72, 76, and 80 are) > 2. Pharo is not Smalltalk (in the sense that most non-Smalltalkers think > that "Smalltalk" = St-80, so they would be mislead and unnecessary turned > off by #1) > > The *marketing* decision's logic is something like the following: Given > that > both of these soundbites are equally (un)true, which one is more likely to > bring people to Pharo? > > |-----------------|-------------Audience--------------------| > |--Sound Byte--|--Familiar w ST--|------Unfamiliar------| > ____________________________________________| > |--Pharo = ST---|-----N/A*-------| Ew! Last century!----| > |-Pharo ~= ST--|-----N/A*-------| Hmm, interesting...--| > * Have already made up their mind and will not likely be convinced by a > soundbite anyway > > While one can certainly understand disagreeing with the possible > effectiveness of the strategy, these threads usually IMHO have the feel of > a > holy war from the camp touching the "Pharo = ST" part of the elephant. > > In the unlikely event that anyone is still reading this, I'll paste my > longer explanation from a similar 2015 thread [1] > > Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> The best way to understand the rationale for Pharo's marketing decision >> is >> to read one of the many long threads about it on the Pharo lists. I doubt >> rehashing it will provide new value. >> >> The issue boils down to the fact that the term Smalltalk has been >> overloaded. The original meaning was prototype Dynabook software that was >> used to bootstrap its replacement every 4 years. This true definition, by >> design, leaves plenty of room for innovation. Unfortunately, when >> Smalltalk-80 was released to the world, that became what people mean when >> they use the word Smalltalk. Obviously, people already familiar with >> Smalltalk are going to look at Pharo and go, "oh look, it's Smalltalk"*. >> But that is not the target market. The audience for the >> Smalltalk-inspired >> campaign is the other 99% of programmers who would never get past: >> "Smalltalk = 1980 = dead = not worth checking out". >> >> Anyway, I'd rather get back to hacking than waste more time in these IMHO >> mostly-pointless debates. In fact, I disagree that unpopularity is a >> problem at all. I would say that our biggest advantage is not being >> popular. I'll take a small community of true-believers over a mob of >> trend >> followers any day. >> >> * Although they'd probably base that opinion on the syntax, which is the >> least important part of Smalltalk (the live environment being first, and >> libraries second). In fact, if Ruby had a live, dynamic, >> turtles-all-the-way-down environment, with a Morphic-like uniform, live >> interface, and Smalltalk-like tools, I probably wouldn't have gravitated >> to Smalltalk > > 1. Why Aren't People Using Smalltalk? > http://forum.world.st/Why-Aren-t-People-Using-Smalltalk-tp4843473p4848195.html > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
