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: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,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 From: "Matthew S. Whiting" Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/21 Message-ID: <32E57FBC.2325@epix.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211343481 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: Matthew S. Whiting wrote: > > 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 I found, accidentally, a control key that submits the post! Sorry about that. The rest of the story is ... the financial application space? Matt