Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake)

Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake)

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96]

Robert Dewar <dewar@MERV.CS.NYU.EDU> writes:
>Paul says
>
><<Technical superiority is not just a matter of having gee-whiz features,
>it is a matter of doing a better job.>>
>
>Sure, but who judges what is a better job. The answer is that the only
>person who can judge is the consumer. The VHS vs Beta example is a good
>one from this point of view. The tecnical folks at Sony thought that
>image quality was *the* important technical quality. But they were wrong,
>and they paid for their mistake. In fact playing time was much more
>important to the public.
>
    I thought one of the biggest reasons that Beta didn't succeed was
    that Sony refused to license the technology in order to keep 100%
    of the market share (can you say "Apple?") and as a result there
    was less available material to view. VHS mostly won out because
    with lots of companies making players, lots of studios were
    willing to put out material on that format regardless of any
    technical superiority.

    Hence what the market really decided on was not a technical issue
    at all. It was more of a marketing blunder coupled with greed and
    stupidity. (Not that Sony would be the first or the last to ever
    make this mistake. The world is filled with such examples.)

>
>An interesting case is gathering steam now, there is a question of whether
>the new digital TV transmission capability should be used for HDTV, or
>more conventional channels. It is beginning to look more and more as though
>the public and the hence the networks, prefer more conventional channels.
>
    HDTV has a similar problem and I liked your earlier observation
    about asking the public what's wrong with TV and not having
    resolution be named number one. Sure: All things being equal, I'd
    rather get a sharper image on the screen. But I'd much prefer that
    Hollywood put out material that wasn't so pathetic, lame, vulgar
    and aimed at the lowest common denominator. If they would come out
    with a) lots of viewing material and b) better quality viewing
    material for HDTV, I might run out an buy a set. As it is, why
    waste the money - Beavis and Butthead will be just about as
    entertaining at lower resolution. (Maybe introduce the HDTV set
    along with a companion VCR & lots of movies formatted for it and
    put one on display in every Blockbuster? It'd take a lot of bucks,
    but I bet the public would run out and buy it if the combined unit
    cost could be kept under $500. Once you get a few million sets out
    there, broadcast will follow...)

    So to bring it back around to the topic of computer languages...

    Technical superiority isn't the only factor in the consumer's
    judgment about buying a computer language. Sometimes it's
    availability of material. I may like Ada better than C, but for
    lots of jobs, the only available compilers are C compilers, so
    that's what we use. (Can't stop everything and retarget an
    existing compiler - often takes too long or costs more than it's
    worth) The decision isn't technical (except insofar as the market
    itself may be considered a technical issue), it's based on other
    concerns that are not a failure of some engineer to anticipate
    what features I think will be important.

    I know Ada has lots of marketing problems that aren't technical in
    nature - not the least of which is incorrect perceptions on the
    part of lots of engineers. e.g. "govt mandate = bad" "Ada = committee
    design = bad" "dropping mandate = abandonment", etc, etc. I hear
    it right across the aisle and any attempts to correct the
    perception seem futile: "Ada is dead - I'm going with Java" Maybe
    it would be wise to make a few superficial changes to the
    language, give it a hip sounding new name, get some major software
    or hardware vendor to back it and start fresh?

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer     ATT:        561.796.8997
Pratt & Whitney GESP, M/S 731-96, P.O.B. 109600  Fax:        561.796.4669
West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600                  Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
===============================================================================
  "I saw a bank that said "24 Hour Banking", but I don't have that much time."
        --  Steven Wright
===============================================================================

As long as the topic is drifting....

[W. Wesley Groleau x4923]

>     entertaining at lower resolution. (Maybe introduce the HDTV set
>     along with a companion VCR & lots of movies formatted for it and
>     put one on display in every Blockbuster? It'd take a lot of bucks,
>     but I bet the public would run out and buy it if the combined unit
>     cost could be kept under $500. Once you get a few million sets out
>     there, broadcast will follow...)

A certain political figure told how at one time the New York Times
bestseller list was based on the sales in three or four stores in
New York City.  When he asked how to get people to read a certain
book, the answer was "people read what the best seller list tells
them everyone else is reading."  So they went to those 3-4 stores,
bought lots of copies, and sure enough, the snowball kept rolling.

Perhaps there's a lesson there for Ada (or Eiffel) advocates.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be
                    wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com

Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!  All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or 
the United States government.  Using email to store YOUR advertising 
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------