A lack of productivity is killing Smalltalk.

> Something like this happened to my project teams twice. (Though it was
> first C++ and later Microsoft VB ASP as the competing project teams.)
> The *much* larger development organizations delivered less
> functionality (according to the companies own metrics), but their
> managers were far more powerful because they had a larger span of
> control.
>
> On 8/12/07, Todd Blanchard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Shows a total ignorance of how management thinks.
> >
> > Java is about 1/10 to 1/5 as productive as Smalltalk.
> >
> >  From the manger's perspective, he wants to climb the corporate
> > ladder.  To do this, he must become more important than he is.  He
> > could hire Steve the wizard Smalltalker to write his system and get
> > it done in a few months.  Steve can do it.  He's pricey but from a
> > productivity perspective, he's worth it.
> >
> > But when promotion time comes - manager guy can only say "I have one
> > employee - Steve" and he gets very little respect as a manager.  How
> > hard can it be to manage one guy?
> >
> > For the timeframe - he could hire 5 Java guys - make more code (that
> > does the same thing) and he gets to say to his peers that he manages
> > a team of 5 developers.  Each developer costs less than Steve - so it
> > looks like he is getting a bargain in two ways.  Which sounds better
> > to his boss who is judging him on his management skills?  He manages
> > Steve.  Or he manages a team of 5?  Which one will get him promoted?
> >
> > Extra bonus reason - Steve can get hit by a bus.  Big risk!  A Java
> > developer can also get hit by a bus - but if that happens it is much
> > less likely to impact the project critically.  So manager guy feels
> > better about that too.  Steve is hard to replace - Java people are a
> > dime a dozen and only have to be 1/5 as good.
> >
> > Smalltalk loses because it is TOO productive.  It frightens the
> > manager and doesn't make him look powerful and important.  It
> > marginalizes him instead.
> >
> > FWIW, I also worked as a dev manager at some large companies and
> > believe me - this is the thought process.
> >
> >
> > On Aug 12, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
> >
> > > Another one from blogosfere. For our rethinking ...
> > >
> > > http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/99
> > >
> > > A lack of productivity is killing Smalltalk.
> > >
> > > I heard today that the development of Dolphin Smalltalk has been
> > > discontinued. Although it isn't a product I used or was familiar
> > > with, I have been involved with a number of Smalltalk-based
> > > development efforts in the past. While it was somewhat popular in
> > > the late 1980s and early 1990s, the commercial usage of Smalltalk
> > > has declined significantly since then.
> > >
> > > Slava Pestov suggests how poor implementations are leading to the
> > > downfall of Smalltalk. I would tend to agree, to some extent. Most
> > > Smalltalk implementations really don't compare to a development
> > > platform like Java, or even what Microsoft has put together with C#
> > > and .NET.
> > >
> > > However, I would tend to think that the main reason why Smalltalk
> > > has started to really fall out of favor is that it doesn't bring
> > > the level of productivity that it used to, relative to other
> > > technologies. Back in the early 1990s, a lot of enterprise-grade
> > > software was written using C or C++. For developing complex
> > > business applications, Smalltalk often did offer a very significant
> > > productivity boost to developers, even if the runtime performance
> > > of the applications suffered somewhat. Being at a higher-level, it
> > > allowed business rules and concepts to be more easily and
> > > effectively represented in the software itself.
> > >
> > > But that started to change by the mid-1990s. Java arose, and
> > > offered many of the benefits that Smalltalk had been offering.
> > > That's not to say that Java, as a language, is comparable to
> > > Smalltalk. In many ways it's quite inferior, even over a decade
> > > after its initial release. But it was more familiar to those
> > > developers who'd come from the world of C and C++, while also
> > > offering OO functionality and garbage collection similar enough to
> > > that of Smalltalk.
> > >
> > > I've worked with several excellent Smalltalk developers in the
> > > past. A talented, experienced professional can do wonders with
> > > Smalltalk. Unfortunately for them, Java and its vast array of
> > > classes, class libraries and frameworks have brought a similar
> > > level of productivity to only average developers. So if these
> > > average developers can churn out an adequate software product at a
> > > lower cost than the Smalltalk expert, as has often become the case,
> > > then the business will flow towards the Java developers.
> > >
> > > Unless the Smalltalk developers bring something to the party that
> > > drastically increases their productivity (or their software's
> > > productivity) over that put out by Java developers, they won't have
> > > a real chance at survival.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janko Mivšek
> > > AIDA/Web
> > > Smalltalk Web Application Server
> > > http://www.aidaweb.si
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

> Another one from blogosfere. For our rethinking ...
>
> http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/99
>
> A lack of productivity is killing Smalltalk.
>
> I heard today that the development of Dolphin Smalltalk has been
> discontinued. Although it isn't a product I used or was familiar with, I
> have been involved with a number of Smalltalk-based development efforts
> in the past. While it was somewhat popular in the late 1980s and early
> 1990s, the commercial usage of Smalltalk has declined significantly
> since then.
>
> Slava Pestov suggests how poor implementations are leading to the
> downfall of Smalltalk. I would tend to agree, to some extent. Most
> Smalltalk implementations really don't compare to a development platform
> like Java, or even what Microsoft has put together with C# and .NET.
>
> However, I would tend to think that the main reason why Smalltalk has
> started to really fall out of favor is that it doesn't bring the level
> of productivity that it used to, relative to other technologies. Back in
> the early 1990s, a lot of enterprise-grade software was written using C
> or C++. For developing complex business applications, Smalltalk often
> did offer a very significant productivity boost to developers, even if
> the runtime performance of the applications suffered somewhat. Being at
> a higher-level, it allowed business rules and concepts to be more easily
> and effectively represented in the software itself.
>
> But that started to change by the mid-1990s. Java arose, and offered
> many of the benefits that Smalltalk had been offering. That's not to say
> that Java, as a language, is comparable to Smalltalk. In many ways it's
> quite inferior, even over a decade after its initial release. But it was
> more familiar to those developers who'd come from the world of C and
> C++, while also offering OO functionality and garbage collection similar
> enough to that of Smalltalk.
>
> I've worked with several excellent Smalltalk developers in the past. A
> talented, experienced professional can do wonders with Smalltalk.
> Unfortunately for them, Java and its vast array of classes, class
> libraries and frameworks have brought a similar level of productivity to
> only average developers. So if these average developers can churn out an
> adequate software product at a lower cost than the Smalltalk expert, as
> has often become the case, then the business will flow towards the Java
> developers.
>
> Unless the Smalltalk developers bring something to the party that
> drastically increases their productivity (or their software's
> productivity) over that put out by Java developers, they won't have a
> real chance at survival.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> AIDA/Web
> Smalltalk Web Application Server
> http://www.aidaweb.si
>
>