Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> Clever Monkey wrote:
>> Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> ...
>> 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."
>
> I can't comment knowledgeably about Emacs vs vi or Lisp vs. Java, but I
> know a lot about Macs vs PCs. We (FORTH, Inc.) bought our first PCs
> when they first came out, and had Forth running on them within a few
> months. That was about 1981. We bought our first Mac in 1984 (also
> when they first came out), and Macs quickly became our office computer
> of choice. There was one on every desk, and those doing PC development
> had one of each. Not only did all of us who used both prefer the Mac,
> all industry pundits of the time acknowledged its technical superiority.
>
Yes, and I may even agree. But this is not what I am taking umbrage
with. The issue is that somehow overall market share should reflect
this success. It does not, and likely never will.
Something as simplistic as "market share" is too narrow to define the
sort of success, especially recently, that the platform has had. In
terms of mind share among a highly skilled set of technical users (and,
some might even say, taste-makers) the platform has succeeded well beyond
I'm saying that using these sorts of simplistic notions of "success" and
"better" -- essentially setting up false dichotomies -- strike me as
very weak, which undermines a critical part of their entire argument.
If an argument is going to be made that overall success is a possible
indicator that unsuccessful options may have more merit then we better
make sure that we are not just setting up such easy indicators of success.
Forth should be able to stand up on its own. I say that the existence
of so many clever taste-makers who find it useful is indication that
there's life in the old girl yet!
|
