Hi,
On 01/01/17 14:37, horrido wrote:
Quite true. The goal of my Smalltalk campaign has always been about
marketing or "branding." The goal has been to get /as many people as
possible/ thinking and talking about Smalltalk. It's not so much about the
quality of conversation as actually having a conversation at all. I explain
here <https://medium.com/@richardeng/domo-arigato-mr-smalltalk-aa84e245beb9>
Thanks for the link. I disagree with this part:
"""
I found
it difficult to engage the Smalltalk community. After many years
and many failed attempts to popularize Smalltalk, most had felt
beaten down into submission. They began to rationalize that
Smalltalk didn�t need to be popular. The community was smug and
insular, and that was just fine with them.
I can�t
say I blame them. Smalltalk has had a storied history and a lot of
water under the bridge. But after all these years, it just didn�t
seem worth getting their hopes up again.
"""
In my case, I never care about Smalltalk popularity and became
hopeless after seeing is not. I have had this care for popularity of
free libre open source software (FLOSS) in the past, but now I think
that my energy is better put in other "fights" and care more about
"sustainability" of FLOSS and its communities and broader societal
issues.
But I do think that Smalltalk needs to become less insular, by
caring about what is happening elsewhere, including technological
and societal places and themes, which means to became a medium to
express care about these places and themes. Sometimes this can be
done by supporting a particular markup format (markdown) or
technology (git) or by supporting broader themes and people (that's
why I talk about data story telling and diverse communities), but
popularity is not the metric in such broader scenarios, but
diversity, autonomy and empowerment.
Cheers,
Offray