From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: "Matthew S. Whiting" Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/21 Message-ID: <32E57E2B.6CB7@epix.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211349822 references: <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: epix.net mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: whiting@epix.net newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) Date: 1997-01-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > Alan wrote: > > > Why would Chrysler hire Kent Beck to oversee the rewriting of their payroll > > system in Smalltalk? They could have chosen C++, Eiffel, Java or Ada95, or > > just stayed with COBOL. Why didn't they? Why choose Smalltalk, when there > > are so much fewer programmers than would be available for C++? Why choose > > Smalltalk, when there is such a wide-spread bias against dynamic typing? > > Maybe because they are manager? Not all decisions, even in large > companies, are based on rational arguments. There is trust in consultants > involved, who aren't always impartial. There is also much internal > backstabbing involved - sometimes managers influence other managers into > bad decisions, to weaken their internal position. > > Not that I'm convinced this is the case with the companies that you listed > as examples. It's just that such success stories don't prove a thing. It > would be much more interesting to hear about the consequences of these > decisions, not about the decisions themselves. > After 14 years in a big company I feel somewhat qualified to comment on this. Most decisions are not made on rational arguments, at least not rational from the viewpoint of most engineers. They are made largely according to the lemming principle, i.e., "everyone else is doing it." Look at downsizing, etc. All it takes is one of two companies to step out and try something new and then the trade press and consultants pick it up as they need something different to justify their respective existences. After that, the 98% of the companies who aren't true market leaders, jump on the bandwagon because every CEO reads it in Business Week or an airline magazine. I'm guessing that one or two prominent companies gave Smalltalk a try in financial applications and either had success or didn't (more later) and then the masses followed. Keep in mind that often failure of a product will get more press than wild success. Most companies don't advertize the tools that truly give then competitive advantage, they keep those to themselves. They advertize the tools that either were NOPs or actually made them less competitive in hopes that their competitors WILL pick up on such tools. Sure, this is a cynical vire, but I think happens more often than people care to admit.. Anyone, know REALLY how Smalltalk got its start in t