🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <316D8523.74D7@concentric.net>, alovejoy@concentric.net wrote:

> Would you consider VisualBasic to be a workhorse language?  Are there
> or are there not many useful programs written in VisualBasic that
> are widely-used?

Yes.  And yes.

> What are the properties of Smalltalk, Java, CLOS, Scheme, Sather, Python,
> Obliq, ML, etc. that make them unsuitable to be workhorse languages--that 
> VisualBasic does not also have?

Wow, you know about a lot more obscure languages than I do.  :)

BTW, I have not excluded Java from the work-horse language sub-class of my
organization of the programming language hierarchy, and in fact think it
has an excellent possibility of becoming one.  I can't speak to all of the
language examples you listed, but I would define a "work-horse" language
to be one which is used by a large body of people to produce useful
software which is used on a regular basis.  VisualBasic, although not a
personal favorite of mine, meets this definition.  I believe that in not
too long, Java will also meet this definition.  C, Pascal, C++, various
assembly languages, many 4th generation "languages" also qualify, as do
many languages I've not listed.  I haven't seen evidence that would
convince me to place the other languages in your list into this sub-class,
but that could be my lack of familiarity rather than the various
languages' lack of utility.

> There are valid reasons why Smalltalk (or other advanced languages) may
not be 
> a good choice for many projects.

And I'm sure there are also valid reasons why they *are* the language of
choice for certain projects.  Just not as often as "work-horse" languages
currently meet the criteria.

> But the reason a language such as Smalltalk
> is not used in most cases has more to do with prejudice, ignorance, politics,
> inertia and the tendency to copy what others are doing than it does with the 
> technical merits of Smalltalk or the requirements of the project.

Now you're starting to sound like the guy I was originally responding to. 
Why would you assume that the match between the technical merits of
Smalltalk and the requirements of the project *don't* have anything to do
with it not being accepted on a broader basis?

>> Let's just say that to some extent, the answers a language *does* have
>> must be relative to the impact of the software which results from it.
>> What other measure would you apply?
> 
> I would say that the impact of the software implemented in a language
> is the **intersection** (NOT the **union**) of the power of the language, 
> the talent of those using it, and the assignments that the language gets 
> dealt by the market.  Once one tool achieves dominance, it is very difficult
> for other incompatible tools to become widely used--regardless of relative
> merit (e.g., Windows, x86, S360/370, gasoline, chinese ideographs, etc).
> So very good tools can have relatively small impact--because they don't
> get used. 

Here is the crux of the issue.  If a tool can't meet the requirements
necessary to fit the demands of the market, pool of available talent, and
integration with existing systems and infrastructure, then that is the
fault of the tool, not the fault of the conditions under which it must be
deployed.  The technical merits of the tool can only be properly judged in
the environment in which it is to be deployed, not in the confines of the
laboratory.

This is the issue I have with those who look down from their ivory towers
on those of us building productive software *despite* the failing of the
tools, the crappy OS's and all the other realities under which any system
must move forward.  It's idealistic, unrealistic and unproductive to take
the position that if only the everyone could become enlightened and we
dumped all the legacy systems and infrastructure, then we'd be in software
heaven.  It wouldn't happen, even if we could do it, because you'd have to
stop the pace of innovation as well, or heaven would start to look like
what we have now--flawed.

BTW, this isn't directed at you, rather at those who take a holy-than-thou
attitude, which is not how I read your response.

> Example: one could use modern linguistic science to design a much better
> language than English or any other natural language.  Aren't you excited
> by the prospect of using such a language?  I know, you just can't wait
> to learn and start using this language.  Right?

Wrong.  Your natural language doesn't meet the requirements necessary to
fit the demands of the market, pool of available talent, and integration
with existing systems and infrastructure, so it isn't a better tool than
the existing language, despite it's technical merits.

Doug Bell
dbell@shvn.com