XPost: alt.os.development   
   From: Ekrem.Saban@utanet.at   
      
   "Maxim S. Shatskih"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag   
   news:dt074t$11i7$1@gavrilo.mtu.ru...   
   >> Maybe it's true for Mac OS X, but AFAIK NextStep is written (with only   
   >> small exceptions) in Objective-C, so it's OO all down, even in device   
   >> drivers and the like.   
   >   
   [...]   
   >   
   > Nevertheless, they had no mass success. Why is this? Due to the language   
   > being   
   > "not so good as a whole", regardless of some sweet spots? Or due to the   
   > masses   
   > being stupid? :-)   
   >   
   >> in practice"). I call this a dumb belly-decision, some kind of "no one   
   >> was ever be fired for purchasing IBM products".   
   >   
   I am sure that the mass of people are stupid. Most of them are conservativ,   
   just following the leader, doing whatever is told. The reason is the loss of   
   doing otherwise. If you do the way others are doing it, you may get help,   
   you will be accepted. If one goes new ways and fail, this person may be   
   regarded stupid. It's not so easy, but it's somehow like I am writing to   
   you...   
      
   I worked for five years for Siemens in Austria. They use systems and tools   
   dated from the 1980s. This is not because they have such a high IQ. Most of   
   the technical personnel are average designer/coders/testers. The reason is   
   that nobody wants to risk something. And if others do it better, even   
   getting economic success? Well, then they started to go to the East. There,   
   they can use the same old way of doing it with a lot of people for a few   
   bucks a month.   
      
   Or do you think that a work of 13 people over three days, calling Germany,   
   India, Slovakia, again Germany is a rational managerial decision, if the   
   task to be done is to increase the entry field length by one character???   
   Corrections had to be done at 10 points, several servers had to get the   
   change. If you use `modern` data container (a non-object-oriented relational   
   DB, say), you do the same job within 10 minutes.   
   > Correct. This approach also has good points - at least this will not fail.   
   > Many   
   > experienced people do not like anything exotic - due to lack of support,   
   > for   
   > instance (especially the peer community support). The practical people go   
   > innovate only if there are direct measurable and/or obvious gains.   
   >   
   > Let's consider, for instance, Eiffel vs. C++. The first question is   
   > "please   
   > name me several vendors of Eiffel compilers. How much do these products   
   > cost?   
   > How rich are the runtime libraries? will they cover the whole OS API or   
   > not?   
   > what is the optimizer quality of the compiler? what debuggers are   
   > compatible   
   > with Eiffel?". With C and C++, you have "yes" for all these little   
   > practical   
   > questions.   
   >   
   > Nevertheless, there were some major _practical_ (not "ivory tower")   
   > innovations   
   > in languages in the last 15 years. Java. C# and .NET. Perl. PHP. So, the   
   > progress goes on.   
   >   
   > I think it is so in _any_ industry - first, some "concept-cars" are made   
   > which   
   > are never issued to mass production, just to demonstrate something   
   > innovative.   
   > Then, the new mass-producted model is started, with some places based on   
   > the   
   > "concept car" of 10years old.   
   >   
   > So are the computer languages. Possible Smalltalk is this kind of "concept   
   > car"   
   > for, say, Perl's OO features.   
   >   
   > --   
   > Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP   
   > StorageCraft Corporation   
   > maxim@storagecraft.com   
   > http://www.storagecraft.com   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)