[vwnc] Anything but Smalltalk -- suggestions?

At 05:38 PM 10/6/2008, Antony Blakey wrote:
>In my experience, the 'answers' in this thread so far are difficult to  
>use because they come from a position of belief.


There are five effectively distinct contexts
in which to propose a Smalltalk related solution:

1) Technology Vendor to development company / end user
2) Technology Consultant
3) Developer to team and/or management
4) Consulting developer/development team to client team
5) Product vendor to product user


> For example:  
>arguments about productivity
...
>Arguments by example,


being geared toward (#2, #3, & #4)
have no bearing
WHAT SO EVER
on context (#5).


>...it's not really possible  
>to craft a winning argument.


... as all such arguments belong
to the other contexts (#1 - #4).


Dennis,

You're in a different context (#5).
You need a winning *proposal*.

You are not selling technology,
so do not follow the otherwise
useful advice of refering to Gartner.
That's a tool for technology vendors,
and sometimes, for developers.
It is for countering arguments -
which you will never hear, and
never participate in.

You are to propose a solution
which is to best meet their needs.
Period.

It may or may not utilize
any specific technology
in the process.

Any objection they might have had
to something you utilize will have
been dealt with -- in terms of constraints,
the ways you will each measure them,
the epsilon to with which you will address them,
and the reaction of your contract to the
occurance of any deviation from agreement --
LONG before any mention of any particular
technology *by name*.


>...
>It's important to recognize as the first part of this strategy that  
>there are real and valid reasons for businesses for whom software is a  
>commodity, to go with commodity products, tools and environments.


NONSENSE.

Such people are
a) not talking to you
b) not interested in competetive solutions
c) not recovering from a recent failure


>The superiority of Smalltalk in a technical sense


has no bearing
WHAT SO EVER
on your context (#5).

All such arguments belong to the other contexts.


>It makes a lot of sense to standardize on  
>a single technology (e.g. MS Windows, .Net, Oracle).
>I lost a client for this reason.


You cannot lose a client for this reason.

You can only lose a *prospective* client,
and only because you are either unable to adapt,
or you choose not to compete, or because your
proposal fails to meet the clients needs
in a way which surpasses all other proposals.


>So my advice is to find out exactly why 'not Smalltalk' - don't guess.


Sort of - but forget about Smalltalk.
At this point, it's a red herring.

Go about the process of determining
what problem needs to be solved,
and what all the known constraints are.

You can make this a pre-proposal if you like,
and become the consultant yourself, or offer
to work with their consultant, to flesh out
their (currently insufficient) RFP.

If you are *building* a solution for them,
include a thorough discussion of deliverables.
Consider having a discussion of methodology.

If you are *tuning* an existing solution,
concentrate on add-ons: training, maintenence,
ongoing relationship, ability to second source,
etc.


> If it's about risk, then you need to focus on the type of risk.
>...


Agreed.  (By the way, it's *always* about risk.)


>It's contrary to normal marketing strategy (and often personal pride),  
>but IME many clients want to know that you are nothing special -  
>special == risk.


Depends entirely on what is being sold.

If you sell 'me too' commodities, then by all means, act like it.

If you sell 'competetive solutions', then at all times, act like it.

The former requires a plug-replaceable 'nothing special' attitude,
the latter precludes it.


See also: "Atlas Shrugged", and the entirety of my previous post, if needed.


Regards,

-cstb


"I have no opinion about that -
 who am I to blow against the wind?"
                     --Paul Simon

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc

Thanks we will try -- but your points are well made and we will try
and be careful -- if we cannot convince the client that in fact they
were incorrect in saying "No Smalltalk", we will probably walk.

However, I know the client (people) and I suspect its more like
"we want you to bake that cake, but please use
    Brand-A Flour, not Brand-X"
I mean, they probably think that Smalltalk or Java or .NET
is just a quick decision one makes and then builds the app.
I hope to convince them that its the "right" approach!

brett wrote:

Dennis Smith wrote:
 > The client is potential now because the "elsewhere" failed,
 >and they had that and themselves (and us) audited by a large
 > consultant. They have now come to us and said they want us
 > to provide a solution, but "we don't want Smalltalk"

    

If they think like that - then WALK AWAY !!   They will be the biggest thorn
in your side as they will NEVER accept that your Smalltalk solution was really what
they wanted. Neither the Consultant or the Client will be 'onside' with you so you
will be "Pushing S**t Up Hill" the whole project.

Consider that  they will continually call upon your services to 'fix up' things, under the contract for free,
 that are 'not quite right' ie: not like Java or .NET or what ever.

Been there , done that -- its not pretty and very stressful. And could sink your business.

However:
Many years ago I was asked to quote on a VERY specific MS-DOS + D-Base contract, which I did not use as a development
Tool Set, and was not very interested in doing so,
I asked their consultant to some and see my QNX + Sculptor option, he did , he was convinced and returned to the client
to change their minds. 10 Years later the system was still doing sterling service, and the client has been very
satisfied. So get that consultant 'on side' and Maybe, Maybe, you can work with these people -- but I doubt it.

Good Luck





  

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc

    

-- 
Dennis Smith                 		         +1 416.798.7948
Cherniak Software Development Corporation   Fax: +1 416.798.0948
509-2001 Sheppard Avenue East        [hidden email]
Toronto, ON M2J 4Z8              <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="sip:dennis@CherniakSoftware.com">sip:dennis@...
Canada			         http://www.CherniakSoftware.com
Entrance off Yorkland Blvd south of Sheppard Ave east of the DVP

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc

On 09/10/2008, at 2:00 PM, Dennis Smith wrote:

> Thanks we will try -- but your points are well made and we will try
> and be careful -- if we cannot convince the client that in fact they
> were incorrect in saying "No Smalltalk", we will probably walk.

IMO that's the right decision. The one time I took on a job in a  
client-mandated foreign environment, on the basis that we had the  
right domain expertise, it cost me $150K of developer resource, at  
least one burnt out developer, significant handwringing, and a  
reputation hit.

> However, I know the client (people) and I suspect its more like
> "we want you to bake that cake, but please use
>     Brand-A Flour, not Brand-X"
> I mean, they probably think that Smalltalk or Java or .NET
> is just a quick decision one makes and then builds the app.

It's not uncommon to analogize with a building architect, who can  
design for brick or SIP, despite the significant difference in labour  
cost. Obviously you agree that in software the choice of language has  
a much more significant impact, and to a large extent software  
architecture and design is not independent of the tools of  
construction, in both the Sapir-Whorf and more mundane senses. I  
certainly think differently when targeting Haskell and Smalltalk, to  
choose two reasonable extremes.

Despite ctsb's aggressive caps (:), I agree that you should vigorously  
attempt to make the language irrelevant, and make it about your domain  
expertise. All of my wins have come from that approach, and I've never  
won a gig by arguing about or promoting the implementation technology.

Still, the client may need reassurance about buying something  
beautifully designed that only you can maintain or understand because  
it's written in an 'arcane' language with a very small developer base.

Under no circumstances say anything about the alternatives e.g. "you  
can't refactor C". Make conservative claims to reassure the client  
that Smalltalk isn't a problem, because it's impossible to win an  
argument that language X is better than language Y without a very  
specific problem set and a technically skilled client.

Sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs on this ...

Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to  
believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
   -- Douglas Adams

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc

Dennis

 

Why does the client care how the solution is implemented? Are

they going to support its maintenance, i.e. you are delivering the source?

 

If not, as I see it, you just need to convince them that;

a)       You are not going away

b)       Cincom smalltalk is not going away

c)       Gemstone is not going away

 

Terry

===========================================================
Terry Raymond
Crafted Smalltalk
80 Lazywood Ln.
Tiverton, RI  02878
(401) 624-4517      [hidden email]
<http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
===========================================================

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dennis Smith
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:30 PM
To: brett
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [vwnc] Anything but Smalltalk -- suggestions?

 

Thanks we will try -- but your points are well made and we will try
and be careful -- if we cannot convince the client that in fact they
were incorrect in saying "No Smalltalk", we will probably walk.

However, I know the client (people) and I suspect its more like
"we want you to bake that cake, but please use
    Brand-A Flour, not Brand-X"
I mean, they probably think that Smalltalk or Java or .NET
is just a quick decision one makes and then builds the app.
I hope to convince them that its the "right" approach!

brett wrote:

Dennis Smith wrote:

 > The client is potential now because the "elsewhere" failed,

 >and they had that and themselves (and us) audited by a large

 > consultant. They have now come to us and said they want us

 > to provide a solution, but "we don't want Smalltalk"

If they think like that - then WALK AWAY !!   They will be the biggest thorn

in your side as they will NEVER accept that your Smalltalk solution was really what

they wanted. Neither the Consultant or the Client will be 'onside' with you so you

will be "Pushing S**t Up Hill" the whole project.

Consider that  they will continually call upon your services to 'fix up' things, under the contract for free,

 that are 'not quite right' ie: not like Java or .NET or what ever.

Been there , done that -- its not pretty and very stressful. And could sink your business.

However:

Many years ago I was asked to quote on a VERY specific MS-DOS + D-Base contract, which I did not use as a development

Tool Set, and was not very interested in doing so,

I asked their consultant to some and see my QNX + Sculptor option, he did , he was convinced and returned to the client

to change their minds. 10 Years later the system was still doing sterling service, and the client has been very

satisfied. So get that consultant 'on side' and Maybe, Maybe, you can work with these people -- but I doubt it.

Good Luck

_______________________________________________

vwnc mailing list

[hidden email]

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc

-- 

Dennis Smith                                  +1 416.798.7948

Cherniak Software Development Corporation   Fax: +1 416.798.0948

509-2001 Sheppard Avenue East        [hidden email]

Toronto, ON M2J 4Z8              <a
href="sip:dennis@CherniakSoftware.com">sip:dennis@...

Canada                         http://www.CherniakSoftware.com

Entrance off Yorkland Blvd south of Sheppard Ave east of the DVP

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc

New news, many of you may have seen from other posts, on information about
Smalltalk from Gartner:

Mark Driver, a Gartner analyst we have been talking to, blogged about
Smalltalk here:

http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_driver/2008/10/09/remember-smalltalk/

James blogged about it here:
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&printTitle=Sm
alltalk_Powers_Forward&entry=3401030840

Regards
       
 Arden

Arden Thomas
Cincom Smalltalk Product Manager
[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Arden Thomas
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 12:15 PM
To: 'Dennis Smith'; 'VWNC, '
Subject: Re: [vwnc] Anything but Smalltalk -- suggestions?

Gartner (as of Dec 2007) lists supported Smalltalks as a mature choice,
which is basically a low risk technology choice.
They recommend things like porting to the latest release.

Gartner's recommendations are very influential in some companies.

(You can see the advocacy talk slides and video from the presentation I gave
at Smalltalk Solutions and ESUG on James blog site).

HTH

        Arden

Arden Thomas
Cincom Smalltalk Product Manager
[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Dennis Smith
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:55 AM
To: VWNC,
Subject: [vwnc] Anything but Smalltalk -- suggestions?

We have a potential client (big) who was a client of ours using an old
unix/rdbms solution, but went elsewhere for a new system.

The client is potential now because the "elsewhere" failed, and they had
that and themselves (and us) audited by a large consultant.

They have now come to us and said they want us to provide a solution, but
"we don't want Smalltalk" -- they only know we use Smalltalk because of the
consultant I suspect.

Anyway, we have dealt with "Has to be Java", "has to be Oracle", has to be
"Windows" etc -- we have never dealt with "anything but Smalltalk".  We use
VW and Gemstone.

I have stuff from the past re "why smalltalk" which we will use, but I just
wondered if anyone had any "new thoughts" on how one might answer this type
of thing??

--
Dennis Smith                         +1 416.798.7948
Cherniak Software Development Corporation   Fax: +1 416.798.0948
509-2001 Sheppard Avenue East        [hidden email]
Toronto, ON M2J 4Z8              sip:[hidden email]
Canada         http://www.CherniakSoftware.com
Entrance off Yorkland Blvd south of Sheppard Ave east of the DVP

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc


_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc


_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc

At 09:10 PM 10/8/2008, Antony Blakey wrote:

>...
>
>Despite ctsb's aggressive caps (:), I agree that you should vigorously  
>attempt to make the language irrelevant, and make it about your domain  
>expertise.
>...


Er - sorry if that came off as aggressive.

Meant to be a simplified version of
<strong><em>markup</em></strong>,
rather than shouting.

MEA CULPA.


-cstb

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc