> Em 01/12/2010 18:50, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> 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, [hidden email] 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..."
>>>
>