[Pharo-project] Pharo integration in enterprise feedback
Hi, I'm looking for feedback on Pharo integration in enterprise. Especially how you have managed to put Pharo in your enterprise. For example, I'm involved in web application development in other languages. For functional testing I'm able to script Selenium using Pharo thanks to WebTester. So Pharo has made a small step at my work. I'm looking for such stories. Cheers, Laurent Laffont Pharo Smalltalk Screencasts: http://www.pharocasts.com/ Blog: http://magaloma.blogspot.com/
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:40 PM, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for feedback on Pharo integration in enterprise.
Especially how you have managed to put Pharo in your enterprise.
For example, I'm involved in web application development in other languages. For functional testing I'm able to script Selenium using Pharo thanks to WebTester. So Pharo has made a small step at my work.
Just show them the diff in time/money for the same development. (BTW, I don't have experience on that heheheh).
I'm looking for such stories.
Cheers,
Laurent Laffont
Pharo Smalltalk Screencasts: http://www.pharocasts.com/ Blog: http://magaloma.blogspot.com/
Em 26/11/2010 07:03, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com > escreveu:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:40 PM, laurent laffont
<laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I'm looking for feedback on Pharo integration in enterprise. Especially how you have managed to put Pharo in your enterprise. For example, I'm involved in web application development in other languages. For functional testing I'm able to script Selenium using Pharo thanks to WebTester. So Pharo has made a small step at my work.
Just show them the diff in time/money for the same development. (BTW, I don't have experience on that heheheh).
Mariano, trust me, I have twenty years of experience on this, and have to tell you: language or more generally the technology has a very small impact in the result you're after to show as 'proof' of supremacy for Pharo in the enterprise. . . Processes, the skill level of the developers, the efficacy of management are much more important. I will stay away of more hard discussions which would involve the statistical validation of the findings before one can trump any result as gun smoke. Regards, -- Cesar Rabak
Indeed I don't want a "how to integrate Pharo into enterprise", I want a "actually I have introduce Pharo in my enterprise and why; what works and what doesn't". Laurent. On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:37 PM, <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote:
Em 26/11/2010 07:03, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com > escreveu:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:40 PM, laurent laffont
<laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I'm looking for feedback on Pharo integration in enterprise. Especially how you have managed to put Pharo in your enterprise. For example, I'm involved in web application development in other languages. For functional testing I'm able to script Selenium using Pharo thanks to WebTester. So Pharo has made a small step at my work.
Just show them the diff in time/money for the same development. (BTW, I don't have experience on that heheheh).
Mariano, trust me, I have twenty years of experience on this, and have to tell you: language or more generally the technology has a very small impact in the result you're after to show as 'proof' of supremacy for Pharo in the enterprise. . .
Processes, the skill level of the developers, the efficacy of management are much more important.
I will stay away of more hard discussions which would involve the statistical validation of the findings before one can trump any result as gun smoke.
Regards,
-- Cesar Rabak
Hi, I recently introduced Pharo in a small-medium software company (parametrix.ch). They use it for Moose (moosetechnology.org) to analyze their systems written in various languages and to introduce an assessment approach in their day to day development process (humane-assessment.com). A number of them are now learning to program in Pharo and Moose. Cheers, Doru On 26 Nov 2010, at 22:07, laurent laffont wrote:
Indeed I don't want a "how to integrate Pharo into enterprise", I want a "actually I have introduce Pharo in my enterprise and why; what works and what doesn't".
Laurent.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:37 PM, <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote: Em 26/11/2010 07:03, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com > escreveu:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:40 PM, laurent laffont
<laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I'm looking for feedback on Pharo integration in enterprise. Especially how you have managed to put Pharo in your enterprise. For example, I'm involved in web application development in other languages. For functional testing I'm able to script Selenium using Pharo thanks to WebTester. So Pharo has made a small step at my work.
Just show them the diff in time/money for the same development. (BTW, I don't have experience on that heheheh).
Mariano, trust me, I have twenty years of experience on this, and have to tell you: language or more generally the technology has a very small impact in the result you're after to show as 'proof' of supremacy for Pharo in the enterprise. . .
Processes, the skill level of the developers, the efficacy of management are much more important.
I will stay away of more hard discussions which would involve the statistical validation of the findings before one can trump any result as gun smoke.
Regards,
-- Cesar Rabak
-- www.tudorgirba.com "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Hi: My own experience as a small software company is that most of my customers don't ask for a specific technology, only are searching some sort of business solutions ( but almost the 95% of my customers are small companies also, without internal developers or with no more than 2 or 3). In this context, selling business solutions more than talk about the technology behind, I have no problems in introduce Pharo/Squeak/Dolphin applications. Cheers. 2010/11/27 Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com>:
Hi,
I recently introduced Pharo in a small-medium software company (parametrix.ch). They use it for Moose (moosetechnology.org) to analyze their systems written in various languages and to introduce an assessment approach in their day to day development process (humane-assessment.com). A number of them are now learning to program in Pharo and Moose.
Cheers, Doru
On 26 Nov 2010, at 22:07, laurent laffont wrote:
Indeed I don't want a "how to integrate Pharo into enterprise", I want a "actually I have introduce Pharo in my enterprise and why; what works and what doesn't".
Laurent.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:37 PM, <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote: Em 26/11/2010 07:03, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com > escreveu:
On  Thu,  Nov  25,   2010  at  10:40  PM,  laurent  laffont
<laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I'm looking for feedback on  Pharo integration in enterprise.  Especially how you have managed  to put  Pharo in your  enterprise.  For example, I'm  involved in  web application development in other languages.  For functional  testing  I'm able  to script  Selenium using Pharo thanks  to WebTester.  So Pharo has  made a small step at my work.
 Just  show  them  the  diff  in  time/money  for  the  same development. (BTW, I don't have experience on that heheheh).
Mariano, trust me, I have twenty years of experience on this, and have to tell you: language or more generally the technology has a very small impact in the result you're after to show as 'proof' of supremacy for Pharo in the enterprise. . .
Processes, the skill level of the developers, the efficacy of management are much more important.
I will stay away of more hard discussions which would involve the statistical validation of the findings before one can trump any result as gun smoke.
Regards,
-- Cesar Rabak
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Yes. this makes another side of the equation: for 95% of clients technology is not pertinent while it does become impediment to the achievement of some part of the project. But, IIRC the idea was to gather info to convince people who have to or want to select some technology. -- Cesar Rabak Em 27/11/2010 13:24, Germán Arduino < garduino@gmail.com > escreveu: Hi: My own experience as a small software company is that most of my customers don't ask for a specific technology, only are searching some sort of business solutions ( but almost the 95% of my customers are small companies also, without internal developers or with no more than 2 or 3). In this context, selling business solutions more than talk about the technology behind, I have no problems in introduce Pharo/Squeak/Dolphin applications. Cheers. 2010/11/27 Tudor Girba :
Hi,
I recently introduced Pharo in a small-medium software company (parametrix.ch). They use it for Moose (moosetechnology.org) to analyze their systems written in various languages and to introduce an assessment approach in their day to day development process (humane-assessment.com). A number of them are now learning to program in Pharo and Moose.
Cheers, Doru
On 26 Nov 2010, at 22:07, laurent laffont wrote:
Indeed I don't want a "how to integrate Pharo into enterprise", I want a "actually I have introduce Pharo in my enterprise and why; what works and what doesn't".
Laurent.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:37 PM, wrote: Em 26/11/2010 07:03, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com > escreveu:
On  Thu,  Nov  25,   2010  at  10:40  PM,  laurent  laffont
wrote: Hi, I'm looking for feedback on  Pharo integration in enterprise.  Especially how you have managed  to put  Pharo in your  enterprise.  For example, I'm  involved in  web application development in other languages.  For functional  testing  I'm able  to script  Selenium using Pharo thanks  to WebTester.  So Pharo has  made a small step at my work.
 Just  show  them  the  diff  in  time/money  for  the  same development. (BTW, I don't have experience on that heheheh).
Mariano, trust me, I have twenty years of experience on this, and have to tell you: language or more generally the technology has a very small impact in the result you're after to show as 'proof' of supremacy for Pharo in the enterprise. . .
Processes, the skill level of the developers, the efficacy of management are much more important.
I will stay away of more hard discussions which would involve the statistical validation of the findings before one can trump any result as gun smoke.
Regards,
-- Cesar Rabak
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Tudor, This kind of report shows that Moose is a useful piece of software. The interest in Pharo became contingent on the Moose technology such as ABAP is 'widespread' in the industry because of SAP ERP. I think it says a lot about Moose, but is not enough to be a sales argument for Pharo. This leads to a common fallacy used in marketing: use "X" as all successful people use "X" as well..." -- Cesar Rabak Em 27/11/2010 07:23, Tudor Girba < tudor.girba@gmail.com > escreveu: Hi, I recently introduced Pharo in a small-medium software company (parametrix.ch). They use it for Moose (moosetechnology.org) to analyze their systems written in various languages and to introduce an assessment approach in their day to day development process (humane-assessment.com). A number of them are now learning to program in Pharo and Moose. Cheers, Doru On 26 Nov 2010, at 22:07, laurent laffont wrote:
Indeed I don't want a "how to integrate Pharo into enterprise", I want a "actually I have introduce Pharo in my enterprise and why; what works and what doesn't".
Laurent.
Hi, I think I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with it :). Moose is a valuable platform exactly because it is built in Smalltalk. Developers understand the power of Smalltalk in the context of Moose quite quickly after they do a couple of tutorials. The result is that they end up wanting to learn Smalltalk. In fact, I argued for quite a while that vendors should use Moose to promote Smalltalk. The cool thing about it is that it addresses directly programmers that develop in all sorts of languages (especially Java). This gives us a nice back door. Cheers, Doru On 28 Nov 2010, at 18:48, csrabak@bol.com.br wrote:
Tudor,
This kind of report shows that Moose is a useful piece of software. The interest in Pharo became contingent on the Moose technology such as ABAP is 'widespread' in the industry because of SAP ERP.
I think it says a lot about Moose, but is not enough to be a sales argument for Pharo.
This leads to a common fallacy used in marketing: use "X" as all successful people use "X" as well..."
-- Cesar Rabak
Em 27/11/2010 07:23, Tudor Girba < tudor.girba@gmail.com > escreveu: Hi,
I recently introduced Pharo in a small-medium software company (parametrix.ch). They use it for Moose (moosetechnology.org) to analyze their systems written in various languages and to introduce an assessment approach in their day to day development process (humane-assessment.com). A number of them are now learning to program in Pharo and Moose.
Cheers, Doru
On 26 Nov 2010, at 22:07, laurent laffont wrote:
Indeed I don't want a "how to integrate Pharo into enterprise", I want a "actually I have introduce Pharo in my enterprise and why; what works and what doesn't".
Laurent.
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
Em 01/12/2010 18:50, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hi, I think I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with it :).
Fair enough! During a debate automatic agreement would not lead to an enriched vision of the problem and more often than not would diverge from the truth :-)
Moose is a valuable platform exactly because it is built in Smalltalk.
I understand this is the sentiment about Smalltalk. Also, giving the project is 13+ years old makes me assume it has started in a different dialect of Smalltalk than Pharo.
Developers understand the power of Smalltalk in the context of Moose quite quickly after they do a couple of tutorials.
The key here, I think, is "in the context of Moose". In my opinion the litmus test for this would be evaluating how many projects _not_ related to Moose are started in Smalltalk after this exposition occurred.
The result is that they end up wanting to learn Smalltalk.
Which per se is an interesting achievement. However, we need it go beyond the wanting to learn to the opportunity to be the implementation language of some new projects in their realms.
In fact, I argued for quite a while that vendors should use Moose to promote Smalltalk. The cool thing about it is that it addresses directly programmers that develop in all sorts of languages (especially Java). This gives us a nice back door.
I think again this is a variation of theme I mentioned in the earlier post. The same has been said about Seaside, or other projects which I perceive as successful as Moose (and written in Smalltalk, of course)! I'm afraid we're missing something essential on this: what problem Pharo (or more generally Smalltalk) addresses better in the enterprise than other technologies? If we arrive at some compelling answers to this, then I believe it would be easy to 'sell' Smalltalk. The examples on the successful projects then would serve to reduce the perceived risk of embarking in an imature technology. my 0.019999... Regards, -- Cesar Rabak
Cheers, Doru
On 28 Nov 2010, at 18:48, csrabak@bol.com.br wrote:
Tudor, This kind of report shows that Moose is a useful piece of software. The interest in Pharo became contingent on the Moose technology such as ABAP is 'widespread' in the industry because of SAP ERP. I think it says a lot about Moose, but is not enough to be a sales argument for Pharo. This leads to a common fallacy used in marketing: use "X" as all successful people use "X" as well..."
On 12/01/2010 06:49 PM, csrabak@bol.com.br wrote:
I'm afraid we're missing something essential on this: what problem Pharo (or more generally Smalltalk) addresses better in the enterprise than other technologies?
Cesar, Part of the answer to this question should come from a look at the existing enterprise customers that are basing their business on Smalltalk. The Smalltalk success stories (at the enterprise level) come from solving problems that are very difficult to solve in the first place. Looking at some of GemStone's customers there are two common characteristics: - large complex problems - problems whose domain is rapidly changing The large problems have to be broken down into pieces that are small enough for a small team of people to attack effectively and the work of these small teams has to be integrated to address the larger problem. This plays into the strength of Smalltalk in that Smalltalk code (and developers) can thrive in an environment where the code base is inconsistent/fluid ... For problems whose domain is rapidly changing it is a requirement that the _architecture_ of the system be able to migrate over time. As business rules change the architecture of the system has to evolve. Again the requirement of having a malleable code base where functionality can migrate and the architecture can evolve play into the strengths of Smalltalk... My $0.02... Dale
Hi, I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80% It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :) Cheers, Doru On 2 Dec 2010, at 03:49, csrabak@bol.com.br wrote:
Em 01/12/2010 18:50, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hi, I think I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with it :).
Fair enough! During a debate automatic agreement would not lead to an enriched vision of the problem and more often than not would diverge from the truth :-)
Moose is a valuable platform exactly because it is built in Smalltalk.
I understand this is the sentiment about Smalltalk. Also, giving the project is 13+ years old makes me assume it has started in a different dialect of Smalltalk than Pharo.
Developers understand the power of Smalltalk in the context of Moose quite quickly after they do a couple of tutorials.
The key here, I think, is "in the context of Moose". In my opinion the litmus test for this would be evaluating how many projects _not_ related to Moose are started in Smalltalk after this exposition occurred.
The result is that they end up wanting to learn Smalltalk.
Which per se is an interesting achievement. However, we need it go beyond the wanting to learn to the opportunity to be the implementation language of some new projects in their realms.
In fact, I argued for quite a while that vendors should use Moose to promote Smalltalk. The cool thing about it is that it addresses directly programmers that develop in all sorts of languages (especially Java). This gives us a nice back door.
I think again this is a variation of theme I mentioned in the earlier post. The same has been said about Seaside, or other projects which I perceive as successful as Moose (and written in Smalltalk, of course)!
I'm afraid we're missing something essential on this: what problem Pharo (or more generally Smalltalk) addresses better in the enterprise than other technologies?
If we arrive at some compelling answers to this, then I believe it would be easy to 'sell' Smalltalk. The examples on the successful projects then would serve to reduce the perceived risk of embarking in an imature technology.
my 0.019999...
Regards,
-- Cesar Rabak
Cheers, Doru
On 28 Nov 2010, at 18:48, csrabak@bol.com.br wrote:
Tudor, This kind of report shows that Moose is a useful piece of software. The interest in Pharo became contingent on the Moose technology such as ABAP is 'widespread' in the industry because of SAP ERP. I think it says a lot about Moose, but is not enough to be a sales argument for Pharo. This leads to a common fallacy used in marketing: use "X" as all successful people use "X" as well..."
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
Em 06/12/2010 18:21, Tudor Girba < tudor.girba@gmail.com > escreveu:
Hi, I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80%
I think your assessment is not that far from reality... :-(
It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :)
I agree on the feeling, I only think we all miss a very important tactical point here: in what realm is Smalltalk superior to other technologies? While we cannot answer this without hesitation and without half escuses on why this 'superiority' don't show itself, we're stuck to feelings and trying to present cherry picked 'examples' of the qualities of our pet language/technology. The issue some cool and kicking creatures could have been done is not enough, we need also to be certain we can get newcomers and have them quickly up to speed in doing so. _That_ has lead other ('younger') languages to their present status. -- Cesar Rabak
Do we have marketing people? We need someone selling smalltalk to business people. :P In most cases (at least here in Argentina), the technology is decided by non technical people (like managers or customers) because they heard something called java and someone recommended it to them... Sad. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM, <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote:
Em 06/12/2010 18:21, Tudor Girba < tudor.girba@gmail.com > escreveu:
Hi, I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80%
I think your assessment is not that far from reality... :-(
It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :)
I agree on the feeling, I only think we all miss a very important tactical point here: in what realm is Smalltalk superior to other technologies? While we cannot answer this without hesitation and without half escuses on why this 'superiority' don't show itself, we're stuck to feelings and trying to present cherry picked 'examples' of the qualities of our pet language/technology.
The issue some cool and kicking creatures could have been done is not enough, we need also to be certain we can get newcomers and have them quickly up to speed in doing so. _That_ has lead other ('younger') languages to their present status.
-- Cesar Rabak
Well sow sow, Very offen, then choice makers, looking for, "security" (talking about people, policy and technology) . "I'm select java because PWC recommend it for this solution'".."Cover your ass" Puaj..Puaj In the second place the choice makers select the technologies, defending he's budget. Not select the cheaper o better solutios.. Fight for manteing or increse, the IT budget.. "More budget..More power.. Say the CIOs (Common Idiot Officer) . Other fact, (at least in Argentine)the CIO don't have real weight in the organization and denpends of Operation or Financials. I don't know where come from the stupid idea that the IT area can be manage for a non-tech people.. I can guess from Accountants..or Lawyers :). In 3th place, the choice makers looking for fame. nobody was selected as InfomationWeek's CIO of Year for select Smaltalk as Core Technology. (The mainstream software houses are sponsor of this cain of publications). In last place the choice makers select the technologies for it's capabilities and "state of art" that he has in your organization. Actually the average programmers don't know the true OOP. I think, Pharo goes in good way..but the finishline is a far far a way. We must continue teaching in the universities..and why not.. The companies.. For free.... Only for introduce the technollogy in the market We must support projects such Seaside, Reef, Glorp, SqueakDBX or Mars (and it's futures version for linux and windows). This cain of projects are the bridge from the mainstream world to smalltalk.. Rigth now, in the mind of traditonal choice maker, a solution without a relational DB(Oracle or something like that) is only "a beatyfull toy". are year a mean. Traditional pieces of software give "Security". We must make deal's with the traditional software companies.. And don't be scare for sign a contract where the project have webservices and java, php or .net front-end. although the solution is not neededâ¬.(Obviously if you don't will be the architect :) ) We need make the peace with commercial people and the technology publications.. At last and over all, when any one from this group, have the chance, one chance, to have a CIO position, take it, and make the difference. This one, please don't think as traditional CIO, think different. Sorry for the large mail and my english Best. 2010/12/7, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com>:
Do we have marketing people? We need someone selling smalltalk to business people. :P
In most cases (at least here in Argentina), the technology is decided by non technical people (like managers or customers) because they heard something called java and someone recommended it to them...
Sad.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM, <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote:
Em 06/12/2010 18:21, Tudor Girba < tudor.girba@gmail.com > escreveu:
Hi, I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80%
I think your assessment is not that far from reality... :-(
It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :)
I agree on the feeling, I only think we all miss a very important tactical point here: in what realm is Smalltalk superior to other technologies? While we cannot answer this without hesitation and without half escuses on why this 'superiority' don't show itself, we're stuck to feelings and trying to present cherry picked 'examples' of the qualities of our pet language/technology.
The issue some cool and kicking creatures could have been done is not enough, we need also to be certain we can get newcomers and have them quickly up to speed in doing so. _That_ has lead other ('younger') languages to their present status.
-- Cesar Rabak
-- Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil
Guillermo, On the surface it may appear as such, but 'non technical' people decide about their business as a whole, and from their perspective, they've heard of Java because it is mainstream and the 'someones' "recommending' it have stakes in this technology... -- Cesar Rabak Em 07/12/2010 03:38, Guillermo Polito < guillermopolito@gmail.com > escreveu: Do we have marketing people? We need someone selling smalltalk to business people. :P In most cases (at least here in Argentina), the technology is decided by non technical people (like managers or customers) because they heard something called java and someone recommended it to them... Sad.
I agree on the feeling, I only think we all miss a very important tactical point here: in what realm is Smalltalk superior to other technologies?
Fun :) Laurent
The issue some cool and kicking creatures could have been done is not enough, we need also to be certain we can get newcomers and have them quickly up to speed in doing so. _That_ has lead other ('younger') languages to their present status.
-- Cesar Rabak
Okay ... I've got another little rant... Smalltalk improves developer productivity ... pure and simple ... the reason that developing in Smalltalk is fun is that there is very little that gets in between the developer and the solution of a problem ... the debugger, inspector and all of the tools mean that a developer can focus on the problem at hand ... the dynamic nature of Smalltalk means that I can add instance variables and change interfaces without having to fight the compiler or the tools ... or lose track of what I am doing .... With that said (here comes the rant:) ... the _enterprise_ is not necessarily interested in developer productivity...productive developers is way down the list for the enterprise ... just look at the waste (not just in software) in a typical corporation ... (end of rant) ... Smaller companies (not at the enterprise level) _are_ interested in developer productivity, so that should be the sweet spot for Smalltalk and there is work to be done to make Smalltalk more attractive to those Smaller companies and it seems that Pharo is headed in the right direction to become more attractive ... Note that many development groups within the enterprise operate like smaller companies, it's just that a CTO of a Fortune 500 company isn't going to wholesale switch his company from using Java to using Smalltalk (at least not this year:)... Oh and GemStone also has enterprise customers who don't necessarily advertise their Smalltalk success stories. Dale On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:00 PM, laurent laffont wrote: I agree on the feeling, I only think we all miss a very important tactical point here: in what realm is Smalltalk superior to other technologies? Fun :) Laurent The issue some cool and kicking creatures could have been done is not enough, we need also to be certain we can get newcomers and have them quickly up to speed in doing so. _That_ has lead other ('younger') languages to their present status. -- Cesar Rabak
2010/12/7 Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com>:
Okay ... I've got another little rant...
Smalltalk improves developer productivity ... pure and simple ... the reason that developing in Smalltalk is fun is that there is very little that gets in between the developer and the solution of a problem ... the debugger, inspector and all of the tools mean that a developer can focus on the problem at hand ... the dynamic nature of Smalltalk means that I can add instance variables and change interfaces without having to fight the compiler or the tools ... or lose track of what I am doing ....
Full, full agree. This is the more important difference I think.
With that said (here comes the rant:) ... the _enterprise_ is not necessarily interested in developer productivity...productive developers is way down the list for the enterprise ... just look at the waste (not just in software) in a typical corporation ... (end of rant) ...
Again agree. A typical corp have lots of programmers, most of time without a real coordination and not really worried by productivity (even when they say the opposite).
Smaller companies (not at the enterprise level) _are_ interested in developer productivity, so that should be the sweet spot for Smalltalk and there is work to be done to make Smalltalk more attractive to those Smaller companies and it seems that Pharo is headed in the right direction to become more attractive ... Note that many development groups within the enterprise operate like smaller companies, it's just that a CTO of a Fortune 500 company isn't going to wholesale switch his company from using Java to using Smalltalk (at least not this year:)...
I talked about this thing on my talk in Smalltalks2010, commenting my own experience as an independent software producer and here, in this context, the productiviy is a key factor (At least 2-1 against any language I know, in my own experience). The other factor is related with the understanding of the systems, even the complex ones, were small companies as mine need to understand the whole system to be developed/sold to a customer Disclaimer to César: I know I'm not talking about Enterprise (Big companies) but still.
Oh and GemStone also has enterprise customers who don't necessarily advertise their Smalltalk success stories.
Dale
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:00 PM, laurent laffont wrote:
I agree on the feeling, I only think we all miss a very important tactical point here: in what realm is Smalltalk superior to other technologies?
Fun :)
Laurent
The issue some cool and kicking creatures could have been done is not enough, we need also to be certain we can get newcomers and have them quickly up to speed in doing so. _That_ has lead other ('younger') languages to their present status.
-- Cesar Rabak
This is a good point! However, the issue with it is that in enterprises programmers are paid to produce code having or not fun :-( OTOH, the main advantage of an environment as Smalltalk, IMNHO the empowerment to the end user, is lost once the programming starts to be Taylorized with a "systems" or "IT" department in charge of this duties and end users having to interact via Requirement Engineers and so on... -- Cesar Rabak Em 07/12/2010 05:00, laurent laffont < laurent.laffont@gmail.com > escreveu: I agree on the feeling, I only think we all miss a very important tactical point here: in what realm is Smalltalk superior to other technologies? Â Fun :) Laurent The issue some cool and kicking creatures could have been done is not enough, we need also to be certain we can get newcomers and have them quickly up to speed in doing so. _That_ has lead other ('younger') languages to their present status. -- Cesar Rabak
On 8 December 2010 00:19, <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote:
This is a good point! Â However, the issue with it is that in enterprises programmers are paid to produce code having or not fun :-(
OTOH, the main advantage of an environment as Smalltalk, IMNHO the empowerment to the end user, is lost once the programming starts to be Taylorized with a "systems" or "IT" department in charge of this duties and end users having to interact via Requirement Engineers and so on...
because Requirement Engineers also want to eat and feed their families :) Indeed, smalltalk makes programming closer down to something, which anyone can do.. But no, people won't buy it, because of the fear of doing something awful, like putting PC on fire and get fired because of that :)
-- Cesar Rabak
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Igor, This is partially true: the percentage of 'power users' in the enterprise who write small systems in Access and Spreadsheets (be it with or w/o VBA) is impressive. It is in the radar screen of consulting firms selling services about risk management due the inherent problems these approaches have to the companies. So empowering the end user is an interesting topic. We need to gain their hearts... Em 07/12/2010 21:35, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu: On 8 December 2010 00:19, wrote:
This is a good point! Â However, the issue with it is that in enterprises programmers are paid to produce code having or not fun :-(
OTOH, the main advantage of an environment as Smalltalk, IMNHO the empowerment to the end user, is lost once the programming starts to be Taylorized with a "systems" or "IT" department in charge of this duties and end users having to interact via Requirement Engineers and so on...
because Requirement Engineers also want to eat and feed their families :) Indeed, smalltalk makes programming closer down to something, which anyone can do.. But no, people won't buy it, because of the fear of doing something awful, like putting PC on fire and get fired because of that :)
-- Cesar Rabak
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Tudor, You cannot convince someone which have already choosen an option. Cheers 2010/12/6 Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com>:
Hi,
I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80%
It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :)
Cheers, Doru
-- Hernán Morales Information Technology Manager, Institute of Veterinary Genetics. National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET). La Plata (1900), Buenos Aires, Argentina. Telephone: +54 (0221) 421-1799. Internal: 422 Fax: 425-7980 or 421-1799.
Hernán, On the other hand, it is hard to try to convince someone to switch if the data we have to present our advantages are not compelling. -- Cesar Rabak Em 07/12/2010 04:18, Hernán Morales Durand < hernan.morales@gmail.com > escreveu: Tudor, You cannot convince someone which have already choosen an option. Cheers 2010/12/6 Tudor Girba :
Hi,
I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80%
It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :)
Cheers, Doru
-- Hernán Morales Information Technology Manager, Institute of Veterinary Genetics. National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET). La Plata (1900), Buenos Aires, Argentina. Telephone: +54 (0221) 421-1799. Internal: 422 Fax: 425-7980 or 421-1799.
Hi, Exactly, that is why I am saying to not even try. I believe a much better approach is to just focus on producing something else that people need, and I also believe that we should focus on the layers above Smalltalk and start infusing Smalltalk lessons in those domains. Moose is such an example. Moose addresses the analysis domain, and it brings in it the lessons of Smalltalk (like everything is an object = everything is an entity). Afterwards, you bundle that with an explicit use case that makes sense and get that in the hands of people. If it's good, they will use it not because of a Smalltalk-related argument, but because of its inner value. And, if they love it, they will pay more attention to what is behind. Cheers, Doru On 7 Dec 2010, at 07:18, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
Tudor,
You cannot convince someone which have already choosen an option. Cheers
2010/12/6 Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com>:
Hi,
I believe Smalltalk is perceived in the following way: 1. Smalltalk is cool: 0.01% 2. What is Smalltalk?: 19,99% 3. Smalltalk is dead: 80%
It is hard to convince the 2nd category to look at something new. Why should they? But, if it's hard to convince someone of something new, you need a miracle to convince someone that something is not dead. But, I think that a miracle like this can be administrated in the form of cool and kicking creatures and then tell them that they kick because of Smalltalk :)
Cheers, Doru
-- Hernán Morales Information Technology Manager, Institute of Veterinary Genetics. National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET). La Plata (1900), Buenos Aires, Argentina. Telephone: +54 (0221) 421-1799. Internal: 422 Fax: 425-7980 or 421-1799.
-- www.tudorgirba.com "When people care, great things can happen."
On 11/25/2010 3:40 PM, laurent laffont wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for feedback on Pharo integration in enterprise.
Especially how you have managed to put Pharo in your enterprise.
For example, I'm involved in web application development in other languages. For functional testing I'm able to script Selenium using Pharo thanks to WebTester. So Pharo has made a small step at my work.
I'm looking for such stories.
Hello, I don't have any such stories. I am using Pharo personally and for business, but I own the business I use it for. :) I think an effective way to evangelize Pharo/Squeak/Smalltalk is to when anybody has the liberty to do so, use it in the small areas where the business has a need and no dependencies or any particular bureaucratic requirements. Encourage coworkers to try it for personal projects, invite them to local user groups. Even if it is simply to explore something different and unknown. Find out some of their interests and where possible and reasonable demonstrate a Pharo solution for their interests. I think the more people we can get to choose Pharo/Squeak/Smalltalk for personal interests, the more people will begin to use it for the jobs at work that they have the liberty to choose. Over time this could lead to understanding of the benefits that Pharo/Squeak/Smalltalk can bring to the enterprise environment or to the developers life in general. If they use it at home, they may also help to improve our enterprise story so that they can make a living using their tool of choice. In the meantime we can improve our enterprise story. And I think we are working on that. Working both ends toward the middle seems to be the way to proceed to me. Just a few thoughts. Jimmie
participants (11)
-
csrabak＠bol.com.br -
Dale Henrichs -
Diogenes Moreira -
Germán Arduino -
Guillermo Polito -
Hernán Morales Durand -
Igor Stasenko -
Jimmie Houchin -
laurent laffont -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Tudor Girba