🚀 go-pugleaf

[I decided to post only after flipping a coin.  I plan to flip a coin
 before each successive post to this thread and not post any more to this
 thread if tails comes up.  The good news is that it's fairly unlikely
 (12.5%) that I'll post three more letters in this thread; the bad news is
 that everytime you see one, there's a 50% chance that you'll see another^1!]

Dear Folks,

David Pollack "wholeheartedly disagree(d) with the concept behind" my most
recent post.  In order to save net bandwidth, I'd sum up my last post as
"keep an open mind, explore all alternatives before making up your mind."
However, that sounds reasonable, yet David disagreed with my post, so I'll
have to assume that my post could have been interpretted otherwise (go check
quick before your expirenews eats it).

David listed the "greatest advances" in the computer marketplace:
The Apple ][, Visicalc, Xerox Star, and Lisa.  This list was followed by
the maxim "Living *WITH* the past is important ... Living *IN* the past is
bad."  Subtly this is interesting, because the elements in his list of
products all share the property of having stopped evolving.  Contrast this
to Executor, which provides emulation of a currently evolving platform and
in the context of spreadsheets provides access to a currently evolving
application.  An application that David describes thus: "Excel is a great
product (when 4.0 came out, I was astounded at its  quality.)" [this is
from a different post].  It's also an admission that using NeXT technology
isn't *always* appropriate, for if it were, David would have used RTF with
bold or italic to emphasize "with" and "in".  Compatibility is always an
issue.

Executor is evolving, as is Excel, which is available through Executor.  I
don't believe this is living in the past.  It's more akin to living in a
different country.  Some people refuse to purchase cars built outside of
the U.S.  Some people refuse to purchase cars built in the U.S.  Interestingly
enough, the distinction w.r.t. cars has blurred substantially over the last
ten years.

I have some trouble with this statement:

	I think that we should support the revolution that is NeXT.
	Yes, we must run certain packages until they become available
	on the NeXT (accounting, page layout, etc.) but we should not expect
	to use a product like Executor into the indefinite future.

because it appears to assume one of two things.  One assumption is that
evolution has stopped in Executor, the platform Executor emulates or the
applications that Executor brings are static.  If that's not the anti-Executor
assumption, then the other one that comes to mind is that once an application
is available natively on the NeXT it should be supported.  The key thing
here is the distinction between "become available" and "outperform non-native
applications".

I'm not sure what David thinks of my knowledge of the state of computing:

	P.S. Cliff, interoperation just got more difficult under
	NS 3.0.  Interopertion is not simply RTF cut and paste,
	but live data links.  Mesa goes one step above live updates right
	into live spreadsheet views in other programs.

The sentence did not live up to its ostensible purpose, to provide me with
more information about interoperation.  I don't think my last post claimed
or even implied that "interoperation is simply RTF cut and paste".  We are
selling competing products.  There are many axis on which to rate spreadsheets.
I have consistently encouraged people to examine all the choices, including
Mesa.

I think there's a diffference between living in the present and living in
the "real soon now".  Executor provides today what many people want today.
It will always be our intention to provide what people want, so of course
I intend that Executor tomorrow will provide what people want tomorrow.
You'll do the same with Mesa, and Microsoft will do the same with Excel
(perhaps even coming out with a native or hybrid port of their own).

		--Cliff

__________________
1 The really bad news is that I have a two headed-coin.  Just kidding.