5 ms·

It never forced anyone to use it. C was forced into use by the popularity of unix. Java by its association with the browser at the time. Nobody would have us

It never forced anyone to use it. C was forced into use by the popularity of unix. Java by its association with the browser at the time. Nobody would have used objective C if Mac OS X had been based on C++ (BeOS). Ruby would be a niche if it weren’t for rails. Javascript, obviously, is necessitated by the browser.

cies 6y ago
You mean it lacked a killer application: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application
k__ 6y ago
I had th impression Java really had something going for it. It used OOP and was leaning heavier on the code-side than Smalltalk, which had this in-place modification of a already running system. I think Java went a step back so people would understand it better.
- projektfu 6y ago
  It had a lot of hype. I think a big part of the hype at the time was web related, but it was also immediately popular with schools. Schools liked that it was easy enough to spend less time teaching the language and more on the concepts. It also helped that it was going to be industrially important.
- brazzy 6y ago
  I think the two big factors for Java's success were these: * OOP in a C-like syntax without the complexity and traps of C++, this made it attractive as a teaching language and ensured a steady supply of Java developers * Cross-plattform-ness, reasonable performance, easy multitasking, and the Servlet API made it the ideal successor to Perl as the default option for web development, leading to ubiquitous industry adoption.
dahfizz 6y ago
So then, maybe a better question to ask is Why does smalltalk not have a killer application? It was used to pioneer GUIs back in the 60's, why didn't it maintain that popularity?
- protomyth 6y ago
  You need developers for that killer app and most killer apps don't come out of big companies. The vendors made sure the little developer wasn't welcome.
- projektfu 6y ago
  Partly because it couldn’t be democratized back then. HyperCard achieved a lot of the Smalltalk dream for individual programmer/users.
giancarlostoro 6y ago
You could also argue Java was forced on people once more thanks to Android which makes the Oracle v. Google lawsuit funnier to me.
mumblemumble 6y ago
Java, I don't think it was association with the browser. I admittedly was still in school at the time, so maybe I'm missing something, but it always seemed to me that everyone regarded Java applets as more of a cute toy than a serious technology. However, Java did solve one really annoying problem that's hard to properly appreciate if you didn't leave any of your own blood behind in the 1990s: Cross-platform development. There were so many operating systems and architectures back then, and none of them had really risen to prominence as a general-purpose option, so most shops were working with a pretty decent variety of different platforms. At one point I worked at a desk that had three different computers with different processor architectures and operating systems (and therefore basically no software in common) sitting on the same desk, and all three were needed for some purpose or other. Into that environment comes a new language/platform that offers write-once-run-anywhere with decent (if not great) performance, and one of the first standard libraries that might be recognized as reasonably mature by modern standards.
- projektfu 6y ago
  The batteries included approach makes a big difference in adoption. So far as I know there was nothing in particular making people use Python, it was just fun.
ema 6y ago
Would smalltalk been as successful as ruby is now if DHH had written rails in it?
- scroot 6y ago
  It's possible. But the mainstream culture of computing is still so entrenched in the division of user/programmer and in the use of text editing as a primary interface that I suspect it would not have caught on in the same way.
- projektfu 6y ago
  That’s a great question. Seaside was really good at handling application flow through pages, seamlessly allowing the back button to work, by being based on closures and continuations. If that had been paired with the new ideas about convention over configuration and if a good object database were freely available, I think DHH might have chosen it had he been aware. DSL like things and magical code are possible in Smalltalk but the system is more reified in its final view. You could have class methods initializing the relationships, etc, but afterward those methods and variables would be visible parts of the system. Then tearing them down might not be as easy as removing a line of code like it is in a language like Ruby where the state is discarded at the end of a run.
jodrellblank 6y ago
From the comments on the article "This reminds of The Lisp Curse. It's so easy to make a slightly different and potentially slightly better Smalltalk that many people end up trying. The resulting noise makes it difficult for substantial improvements to be recognized as such." - this is another way of talking about being forced to use it; it might be possible to build a better JavaScript or Visual Basic or Bash, but if you try the dominant one which is tightly coupled with a large popular system will have a lot more momentum. The force drags people to it, and stops it splintering into twisty maze of implementations all alike.
__d 6y ago
Objective-C was the language of NeXTSTEP, which was one of the most productive programming environments of its era (early 1990's). In companies where custom, in-house software development was required, NeXT, NeXTSTEP, and Objective-C did quite well. The whole macOS thing happened about 10 years after the first successes of Objective-C, when it was well on the path to obscurity due to the failure of NeXT's hardware, and then operating system businesses. But this also kinda proves your point ... it was NeXTSTEP that made Objective-C succeed (both the first time, and then again with macOS/iOS).
- projektfu 6y ago
  Objective C had fewer users than Smalltalk before Apple bought NeXT. Hardly a success in the sense we’re saying. It was a very nice system compared to its contemporaries. MacOS 10.1/Cocoa was a lot more fun than anything Microsoft offered.

cies 6y ago

You mean it lacked a killer application: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application

k__ 6y ago

I had th impression Java really had something going for it. It used OOP and was leaning heavier on the code-side than Smalltalk, which had this in-place modification of a already running system. I think Java went a step back so people would understand it better.

projektfu 6y ago
It had a lot of hype. I think a big part of the hype at the time was web related, but it was also immediately popular with schools. Schools liked that it was easy enough to spend less time teaching the language and more on the concepts. It also helped that it was going to be industrially important.
brazzy 6y ago
I think the two big factors for Java's success were these: * OOP in a C-like syntax without the complexity and traps of C++, this made it attractive as a teaching language and ensured a steady supply of Java developers * Cross-plattform-ness, reasonable performance, easy multitasking, and the Servlet API made it the ideal successor to Perl as the default option for web development, leading to ubiquitous industry adoption.

dahfizz 6y ago

So then, maybe a better question to ask is Why does smalltalk not have a killer application? It was used to pioneer GUIs back in the 60's, why didn't it maintain that popularity?

protomyth 6y ago
You need developers for that killer app and most killer apps don't come out of big companies. The vendors made sure the little developer wasn't welcome.
projektfu 6y ago
Partly because it couldn’t be democratized back then. HyperCard achieved a lot of the Smalltalk dream for individual programmer/users.

giancarlostoro 6y ago

You could also argue Java was forced on people once more thanks to Android which makes the Oracle v. Google lawsuit funnier to me.

mumblemumble 6y ago

Java, I don't think it was association with the browser. I admittedly was still in school at the time, so maybe I'm missing something, but it always seemed to me that everyone regarded Java applets as more of a cute toy than a serious technology. However, Java did solve one really annoying problem that's hard to properly appreciate if you didn't leave any of your own blood behind in the 1990s: Cross-platform development. There were so many operating systems and architectures back then, and none of them had really risen to prominence as a general-purpose option, so most shops were working with a pretty decent variety of different platforms. At one point I worked at a desk that had three different computers with different processor architectures and operating systems (and therefore basically no software in common) sitting on the same desk, and all three were needed for some purpose or other. Into that environment comes a new language/platform that offers write-once-run-anywhere with decent (if not great) performance, and one of the first standard libraries that might be recognized as reasonably mature by modern standards.

projektfu 6y ago
The batteries included approach makes a big difference in adoption. So far as I know there was nothing in particular making people use Python, it was just fun.

ema 6y ago

Would smalltalk been as successful as ruby is now if DHH had written rails in it?

scroot 6y ago
It's possible. But the mainstream culture of computing is still so entrenched in the division of user/programmer and in the use of text editing as a primary interface that I suspect it would not have caught on in the same way.
projektfu 6y ago
That’s a great question. Seaside was really good at handling application flow through pages, seamlessly allowing the back button to work, by being based on closures and continuations. If that had been paired with the new ideas about convention over configuration and if a good object database were freely available, I think DHH might have chosen it had he been aware. DSL like things and magical code are possible in Smalltalk but the system is more reified in its final view. You could have class methods initializing the relationships, etc, but afterward those methods and variables would be visible parts of the system. Then tearing them down might not be as easy as removing a line of code like it is in a language like Ruby where the state is discarded at the end of a run.

jodrellblank 6y ago

From the comments on the article "This reminds of The Lisp Curse. It's so easy to make a slightly different and potentially slightly better Smalltalk that many people end up trying. The resulting noise makes it difficult for substantial improvements to be recognized as such." - this is another way of talking about being forced to use it; it might be possible to build a better JavaScript or Visual Basic or Bash, but if you try the dominant one which is tightly coupled with a large popular system will have a lot more momentum. The force drags people to it, and stops it splintering into twisty maze of implementations all alike.

__d 6y ago

Objective-C was the language of NeXTSTEP, which was one of the most productive programming environments of its era (early 1990's). In companies where custom, in-house software development was required, NeXT, NeXTSTEP, and Objective-C did quite well. The whole macOS thing happened about 10 years after the first successes of Objective-C, when it was well on the path to obscurity due to the failure of NeXT's hardware, and then operating system businesses. But this also kinda proves your point ... it was NeXTSTEP that made Objective-C succeed (both the first time, and then again with macOS/iOS).

projektfu 6y ago
Objective C had fewer users than Smalltalk before Apple bought NeXT. Hardly a success in the sense we’re saying. It was a very nice system compared to its contemporaries. MacOS 10.1/Cocoa was a lot more fun than anything Microsoft offered.