Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> I recently ran into some websites that seem to me to relate to or
>> contrast to the basic philosophy behind Forth, so I thought I would
>> share them.
>> The Graphing Calculator Story
>> [ http://www.pacifict.com/Story/
]
>>
>> Worse Is Better
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html
]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf
]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf
]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/WorseIsBetterPositionPaper.pdf
]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/ProWorseIsBetterPosition.pdf
]
>> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
]
>>
>> The Hollywood Principle [
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Principle
]
>>
>> ...and a couple that relate to Forth's popularity
>>
>> Models of Software Acceptance: How Winners Win
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/AcceptanceModels.pdf
]
>>
>> Money Through Innovation Reconsidered
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/Innovation.pdf
]
>
> Thank you! "How Winners Win" is partcularly relevant and well-done.
>
This is an interesting critique of the received wisdom, but it falls
into exactly the same trap in some respects.
In their argument that the best tech does not always win, they cite:
Mac vs. Wintel
Emacs vs. vi
Lisp vs. Java
....
Really? These are the highlights of better technologies that have lost
out that they have chosen to prove their argument?
First of all, the assumption that one of these is better technology than
the other is specious, at best. Second of all, best technology in what
regard? Are Macs really all that better? I may think so, but what I'm
really saying is that "Macs are better for me, as a working software
engineer and part-time home IT person, and let's face it, when I
switched Linux desktops sucked and Windows 2000 was a disaster."
Comparing something as broad as market share for a platform is really
lame, as the actual patterns tend to be clumpy. An argument can be made
that OS X (especially) has reinforced and encouraged a sort of
mind-share among certain var of technical people where Macs have all the
"market share" they need.
And the Emacs vs. vi thing, well, I'm flabbergasted.
The rest of the presentation introduces similar sorts of weak
comparisons or downright false dichotomies. The fact that they base
their critique on the assumption that these technologies are
self-evidently "better" than the other, and yet did not (again, in a
self-evident manner) "succeed" pretty much makes their entire thesis
suspect.
--
clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.
|
