Re: [Pharo-users] I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.
Kilon wrote
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with a distributed version control system; - it doesnât support working at the right granularity; - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the directions github is taking. It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we donât like at any time. It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; - we can do much better than github (but donât have enough time). We should be using a P2P, bittorrent like system for version control. Stephan
But why? On 03 Nov 2013, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Kilon wrote
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with a distributed version control system; Itâs now. Git is decentralised. And Guthub helps to use that even more with forks, pull requests, etc.
- it doesnât support working at the right granularity; I donât get the point.
- the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the directions github is taking. true
It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we donât like at any time. It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; - we can do much better than github (but donât have enough time). We should be using a P2P, bittorrent like system for version control. I think we should think about that. Monticello bothers me a lot. You have a lot of duplications, no safety for previous versions, etc. I donât like an idea of snapshots. Storing changes looks much better to me.
Stephan
Uko
On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Kilon wrote
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with a distributed version control system; - it doesnât support working at the right granularity; - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the directions github is taking. It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we donât like at any time. It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; - we can do much better than github (but donât have enough time). We should be using a P2P, bittorrent like system for version control.
github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all. What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a versioning system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git. With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods) With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized. Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to something ideal. I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a wrong picture about it :)
+1 Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc. Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not even elegant). FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't need Github anyway... On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>wrote:
On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Kilon wrote
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with a distributed version control system; - it doesnât support working at the right granularity; - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the directions github is taking. It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we donât like at any time. It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; - we can do much better than github (but donât have enough time). We should be using a P2P, bittorrent like system for version control.
github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all. What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a versioning system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git.
With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods) With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized. Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to something ideal.
I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a wrong picture about it :)
Git. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM, <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
François Stephany wrote:
+1
Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc. Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not even elegant).
What do you consider are scalable alternatives for storing external files related to a project? cheers -ben
FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't need Github anyway...
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> <camillobruni@gmail.com>wrote:
On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Kilon wrote
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find
little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with
a distributed version control system;
- it doesnât support working at the right granularity; - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the
directions github is taking.
It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we
donât like at any time.
It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; - we can do much better than github (but donât have enough time). We
should be using a P2P,
bittorrent like system for version control.
github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all. What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a versioning system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git.
With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods) With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized. Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to something ideal.
I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a wrong picture about it :)
I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason behind it from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited, meaning that if you commit in a directory of 100 mb of data, then you will get 100 mb per commit, will take you only 10 commits for 1 GB. All that assuming that that data is tracked by your git repo (git add). So if you dont want to version control that data, it would make more sense to use something like dropbox or torrents etc. Dropbox also offers some very basic version control, but its very limited AFAIK. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM, François Stephany < tulipe.moutarde@gmail.com> wrote:
Git.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM, <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
François Stephany wrote:
+1
Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc. Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not even elegant).
What do you consider are scalable alternatives for storing external files related to a project? cheers -ben
FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't need Github anyway...
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> <camillobruni@gmail.com>wrote:
On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Kilon wrote
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find
little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with
a distributed version control system;
- it doesnât support working at the right granularity; - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the
directions github is taking.
It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we
donât like at any time.
It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; - we can do much better than github (but donât have enough time). We
should be using a P2P,
bittorrent like system for version control.
github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all. What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a versioning system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git.
With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods) With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized. Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to something ideal.
I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a wrong picture about it :)
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason behind it from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited, meaning that if you commit in a directory of 100 mb of data, then you will get 100 mb per commit, will take you only 10 commits for 1 GB. All that assuming that that data is tracked by your git repo (git add).
that is plainly wrong understanding of how git works. davorin rusevljan http://www.cloud208.com
El 06/11/2013 10:52, "kilon alios" <kilon.alios@gmail.com> escribió:
I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason
behind it from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited, Not at all. Simply put, git works in terms of diffs.
Probably I mixed things up, or I remember incorrectly, my apologies. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Sergi Reyner <sergi.reyner@gmail.com> wrote:
El 06/11/2013 10:52, "kilon alios" <kilon.alios@gmail.com> escribió:
I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason
behind it from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited,
Not at all. Simply put, git works in terms of diffs.
You will need to explain because I don't understand what you mean by centralized vs distributed , does not support working at the right granularity. Influence the way Github goes is besides the point at this point since we dont have a better alternative and I will be a great oracle to predict , or not, that we wont have one in the next decade. Unless something extraordinary happens and Pharo goes super popular. Being a commercial application has not stopped tons of open source projects porting to it. But hey what do they know. I am not sure what you mean about sourceforge, I see still loads of open source project using it. The thing I see right now, is that I already use Github with Filetree and Monticello-GIT and it works. Can see the commits I made manually to git and create git commits. The only thing it does not do is push though thats also pretty much a matter of adding the code. So it looks like monticello is already there. It could be polished and sophisticated git interaction be integrated but I think with time we will see those things as well hopefully I can give a helping hand. And if Git is good enough to version control Linux source, I dont see why it would be a big problem to Pharo. But even if it is should not be faster if we make extensions to git via monticello to work around these potential problems instead of doing a huge project from scratch ? I will keep trying Monticello-GIT , if it works as well it seems to work I will probably stick with it. I would love also to extend it when I become familiar with its internals. Big thanks to people behind this. I think being against git is perfectly fine, wanting to trying your own thing is awesome, focusing on pharo specific solution is of course a good thing. But then not wanting to do that and use what is already out there can be as wise. On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Kilon wrote
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with a distributed version control system; - it doesnât support working at the right granularity; - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the directions github is taking. It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we donât like at any time. It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; - we can do much better than github (but donât have enough time). We should be using a P2P, bittorrent like system for version control.
Stephan
I'm really just a fairly uninterested bystander who's been eavesdropping. I don't much care one way or the other, except that I'd *love* to see Pharo explode into the popularity that it deserves. On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:34 AM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Influence the way Github goes is besides the point at this point since we dont have a better alternative and I will be a great oracle to predict , or not, that we wont have one in the next decade.
Alan Kay once said something along the lines of "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
Unless something extraordinary happens and Pharo goes super popular.
I think that may be the wrong attitude. Even if it doesn't, the best ideas will filter down to inferior languages/environments. Things like Visual Studio and Resharper are still trying to bring Smalltalk into the mainstream...though in a very limited scope. If someone creates something that's a significant improvement to github, and it's generally useful, it won't matter what technology created it. It either will supplant github or github will extend and embrace the ideas. Either way, the ecosystem improves. I could probably write a thesis about the actual economics and morality and sanity of using closed source created by a company like github vs. something like squeaksource (which I loved), but (AFAICT) the community is faced with exactly that sort of crisis. It takes time and effort to maintain and improve anything. People who are making money doing so are in a better position to make that "anything" nicer and friendlier to end-users than people who are working on it in their/our spare time. It's a sad fact of life: most of us don't get to be Richard Stallman (or maybe that's a happy fact...whatever).
Being a commercial application has not stopped tons of open source projects porting to it. But hey what do they know. I am not sure what you mean about sourceforge, I see still loads of open source project using it.
Have you checked out sourceforge lately? It was obnoxious for years. Which is probably the main reason that so many projects have moved to github. The last time I tried to download anything from it, I had to wade through 3 pages of "Download and install this malware to do things you already can!" searching for the "Never mind, just let me download the thing I want" link that was buried in all the crap. In the end, I *still* wound up with 3 things I didn't want. I can only assume they'd have tried to auto-install if I were running Windows. I found out the next day that they'd been acquired by some new company. I intend to avoid them like the plague from now on. Github might wind up in the same boat, but I think that would require some major redesign on their part. It seems like it'd be pretty tough to insert adware into the `git clone` process.
And if Git is good enough to version control Linux source, I dont see why it would be a big problem to Pharo.
Several years back, when people were starting to realize that tools like Source Safe and SVN suck, I was involved in a long conversation sort-of along these same lines in one of the lisp communities. Everyone was looking for the next big thing in source control. At the time, Darcs looked like the thing that should win, but wouldn't. Git was too big, nasty, scary, and didn't work on Windows, so it didn't even seem to be a contender. Every option available was focused around old-school line-based diff's. Which seemed totally asinine from a lisp perspective: that was really about modifying leaves and branches in a tree. I probably got flamboyant about this at the time. Finally, someone politely suggested that I go ahead and write it myself if I thought it was such a great idea. So I tried, and it turned out to be a lot tougher than I'd expected. Most of what I learned from that experience was the basic lesson that I didn't have a clue about lisp. But the experience seems at least a little relevant here. Git seems like a horrible tool for tracking changes to a smalltalk...I dunno. I'm such an outsider and newb here that I'm not even sure about the proper terminology. Package, maybe? Whatever. Group of classes that you write and maintain that implements some sort of useful batch of functionality. At the same time...would it be worth the effort to implement something in the same realm that would be competing with an established opponent? Then again, sooner or later, *something* will come along that makes git look as obsolete as git did to CVS/SVN.
But even if it is should not be faster if we make extensions to git via monticello to work around these potential problems instead of doing a huge project from scratch ?
FWIW, I'd vote for that sort of approach. If I had any right to a vote here. Evolution beats revolution. Then again, I've dabbled around with what that actually means (I've been trying to come up with a decent way to visualize branches in my very limited spare time), and git seems to be pretty nasty to deal with under the covers.
I think being against git is perfectly fine, wanting to trying your own thing is awesome, focusing on pharo specific solution is of course a good thing. But then not wanting to do that and use what is already out there can be as wise.
Git sort of arrived in the middle of a perfect storm. Everyone was feeling the pain of source control systems that truly sucked. Linus felt that pain and threw a solution together. Its victory may be another great example of the way "less beats more", or it might be a testimony to name brand inertia. Or maybe it's just that intellectuals don't understand the wisdom of the market. Be that as it may. I still get riled up enough about source control to write long rants like this one when I have better ways to spend my time. Git sucks, but so does everything else. I don't have the time to invest in making it better. I'm too busy working on problems that I consider more interesting. I suspect this is the simple reality of what's going on here. If someone *does* care enough about the ecosystem to truly invest in a VCS that makes more sense than git, well, power to you. In the meantime, it seems like building beautiful and intuitive UI's on top of github's existing architecture would be more productive. Hmm. Now there's an idea to explore. Going back into lurk mode. Respectfully, James
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Alan Kay once said something along the lines of "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
I always joke that he forgot âThe only way to have a future is to finish somethingâ ;-)
Marcus
Nice. I may steal that corollary and blog about it someday. -- James
On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:42, James Ashley <james.ashley@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Alan Kay once said something along the lines of "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
I always joke that he forgot âThe only way to have a future is to finish somethingâ ;-)
Marcus
Nice. I may steal that corollary and blog about it someday. â James
explanation: âsomethingâ means really that: You do not need to âreinvent everythingâ to *have* a future. You finish something (trivial, boring), and than you use that to build on top. Yes, it will be trivial. But the, in the end tragic, fact is that anything you can *do* in the sense of really making in real will be trivial. Else you could not do it. If you wait for that amazing thing that will be so great that it even amazes you yourself who made it real: Sorry, this will never happen. *Everything* you can make real will be trivial and boring by definition. âNow I know how to do itâ. Yes!, so finish, and than build on top. Marcus
I always joke that he forgot âThe only way to have a future is to finish somethingâ ;-)
âOne of the sad memories of my life is a visit to the celebrated mathematician and inventor, Mr Babbage. He was far advanced in age, but his mind was still as vigorous as ever. He took me through his work-rooms. In the first room I saw parts of the original Calculating Machine, which had been shown in an incomplete state many years before and had even been put to some use. I asked him about its present form. âI have not finished it because in working at it I came on the idea of my Analytical Machine, which would do all that it was capable of doing and much more. Indeed, the idea was so much simpler that it would have taken more work to complete the Calculating Machine than to design and construct the other in its entirety, so I turned my attention to the Analytical Machine.ââ âAfter a few minutesâ talk, we went into the next work-room, where he showed and explained to me the working of the elements of the Analytical Machine. I asked if I could see it. âI have never completed it,â he said, âbecause I hit upon an idea of doing the same thing by a different and far more effective method, and this rendered it useless to proceed on the old lines.â Then we went into the third room. There lay scattered bits of mechanism, but I saw no trace of any working machine. Very cautiously I approached the subject, and received the dreaded answer, âIt is not constructed yet, but I am working on it, and it will take less time to construct it altogether than it would have token to complete the Analytical Machine from the stage in which I left it.â I took leave of the old man with a heavy heart.â â Lord Moulton (and if someone says âbut he invented the modern computer": No, he did not. We know about him because Ada Lovelance helped him publishing theoretical results (after removing lots of random ramblings about the evil state of research funding). Babagge is *irrelevant* for today. He was rediscovered later after people re-invented his computer. If he would have finished (or just made sure to delegate it, being so trivial that should have been really easy?) he truly would have changed *everything*. âSometimes you need to finish that damn trivial calculatorâ â me Marcus
Marcus, FWIW, you are inspiring. I am amazed on how you keep the thing going. Thanks for showing the high road. Phil
On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:35, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Alan Kay once said something along the lines of "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
I always joke that he forgot âThe only way to have a future is to finish somethingâ ;-)
Marcus
Made my day
Yeah I cant say I agree with Mr Kay my answer to his quote will be that he is wrong and that "the best way to predict the future is to create a monopoly" . After all Windows had and still has a very predictable future. But I can understand why he said that, and I most certainly would motivate this kind of thinking which I find it as the foundation of Smalltalk culture and why I love to use Smalltalk. Its kinda ironic that bigger (market share wise) something is the less mobile it becomes. To the rest of your reply, I cant really argue so deeply. Personally I am just a dude that does very basic things with git. As to why sourceforge lost some of its crowd to Github, for me its dead obvious that Github is a much more clean and well designed solution. I always saw sourceforge as too messy, and If sourceforge was our only alternative option then I would be pushing for improvement to Smalltalkhub. Unfortunately I am not interested into source control. I am mainly a GUI , graphics and sound / music coder. Maybe one day like you , after I have used it for much more projects, I will hate git, but so far it has worked great for my very simple needs. On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
Alan Kay once said something along the lines of "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
I always joke that he forgot âThe only way to have a future is to finish somethingâ ;-)
Marcus
On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:54, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah I cant say I agree with Mr Kay my answer to his quote will be that he is wrong and that "the best way to predict the future is to create a monopolyâ .
Yes, in 2007, the iPhone showed that âWe can not do anything because Microsoftâ was just wrong. Marcus
I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market. Well there is windows mobile and now windows 8 for phones and tablets but both are far from monopoly products. Plus iPhone is not even an OS unless you were referring to iOS. I was talking about desktop's future. For your quote to work it would imply Microsoft having monopoly to anything. Fortunately that is not the case. They are big but nowhere near that big. But if they did, well you would be agreeing right now with me ;) On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:54, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah I cant say I agree with Mr Kay my answer to his quote will be that he is wrong and that "the best way to predict the future is to create a monopolyâ .
Yes, in 2007, the iPhone showed that âWe can not do anything because Microsoftâ was just wrong.
Marcus
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:11, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market.
Yet, that old market is now in a very bad shape and people talk about the âdeath of the desktopâ. You do not need to be in the same market if you can make the old one obsolete. Marcus
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:17, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:11, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market.
Yet, that old market is now in a very bad shape and people talk about the âdeath of the desktopâ. You do not need to be in the same market if you can make the old one obsolete.
Marcus
I think that we should be passionate about what we are doing. Look at Scala for example. Itâs becoming quite popular, and it was developed for 10 years. Pharo still has a lot of time to attract people, but we need to push something new. Itâs not java like smalltalk, or something smalltalk-inspired that looks like C. For me Pharo is what had to happen to Smalltalk: evolution. Usually Smalltalk is mentioned with â80â suffix. Pharo is Smalltalk2013. And we can make it really cool, but we should stick to smalltalk philosophy. Having tools, working with objects, etc...
+1 Pharo should be Pharo :) And we should all push in that direction - minimal core - sweet integration with the rest of the world - objects - cool libraries
I think that we should be passionate about what we are doing. Look at Scala for example. Itâs becoming quite popular, and it was developed for 10 years. Pharo still has a lot of time to attract people, but we need to push something new. Itâs not java like smalltalk, or something smalltalk-inspired that looks like C. For me Pharo is what had to happen to Smalltalk: evolution. Usually Smalltalk is mentioned with â80â suffix. Pharo is Smalltalk2013. And we can make it really cool, but we should stick to smalltalk philosophy. Having tools, working with objects, etc...
Are those the same people that a decade ago were proclaiming Java dead ? It only takes a walk to TIOBE INDEX to see how much of a threat mobile market is to desktop. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html I am sure Angry Birds and Candy Crash Saga are substantial opponents to Desktop but I don't see Windows sweating from agony any time soon. On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:11, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market.
Yet, that old market is now in a very bad shape and people talk about the âdeath of the desktopâ. You do not need to be in the same market if you can make the old one obsolete.
Marcus
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:33, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Are those the same people that a decade ago were proclaiming Java dead ? It only takes a walk to TIOBE INDEX to see how much of a threat mobile market is to desktop.
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
http://blog.timbunce.org/2008/04/12/tiobe-or-not-tiobe-lies-damned-lies-and-...
I am sure Angry Birds and Candy Crash Saga are substantial opponents to Desktop but I don't see Windows sweating from agony any time soon.
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:11, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market.
Yet, that old market is now in a very bad shape and people talk about the âdeath of the desktopâ. You do not need to be in the same market if you can make the old one obsolete.
Marcus
I think its unrealistic to expect accurate numbers in any way other than going outside and asking each coder what language he uses and for what platform. None the less, its not hard at all to validate at least with a substantial level of inaccuracy the numbers indicated by TIOBE , sure some languages may jump 2 -3 spots up and down but still the general idea is there. Mobile is nowhere near replacing desktop. And why isolate yourself to TIOBE plenty of sources online to see what interests developers the most. The problem with mobile is that ergonomically it has no chance of replacing desktop, well, ever. And even though new mobile devices come out with substantial hardware specs, the quality of software is underwhelming even if you compare it with desktop 10 years ago. Even the trend of the "almost dead" desktop developers that port their apps to mobile is to created dumb down very limited apps of their desktop versions. I downloaded a first person shooter the other day , a simple game nothing that could even remotely compete with FPS behemoths of desktop or consoles , and I was amazed how cumbersome it was to even operate for simple action of shooting and walking around. I gave up after 20 minutes of suffering. I think mobile is great for what it is , mobile. I was a big supporter of iPad app as a musical tool in gearslutz forums when most musicians there declared it as "overly expensive toy" , I made the extremely unpopular prediction that it would be embraced by pro musicians and amateurs alike and that was back when iPad was still a new thing. But to claim that it will replace desktop , now thats a very bold claim. I have an iPad and android phone and android tablet. I am a fan of the mobile platform. I do believe in its potential. But killing the desktop, is like any rumor including the words "kill" or "dead" an urban myth. On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:33, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Are those the same people that a decade ago were proclaiming Java dead ? It only takes a walk to TIOBE INDEX to see how much of a threat mobile market is to desktop.
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
http://blog.timbunce.org/2008/04/12/tiobe-or-not-tiobe-lies-damned-lies-and-...
I am sure Angry Birds and Candy Crash Saga are substantial opponents to Desktop but I don't see Windows sweating from agony any time soon.
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:11, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market.
Yet, that old market is now in a very bad shape and people talk about the âdeath of the desktopâ. You do not need to be in the same market if you can make the old one obsolete.
Marcus
participants (13)
-
btc＠openinworld.com -
Camillo Bruni -
Davorin Rusevljan -
François Stephany -
James Ashley -
kilon alios -
Marcus Denker -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Sergi Reyner -
Stephan Eggermont -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Yuriy Tymchuk