If you have something important to share with the world (like Smalltalk, for example), check out this TED talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html Two great things I took away: * people buy what you believe, not what you do - it seems that often Smalltalk is marketed on the "what" e.g. developer productivity, platform-independence; his example about TiVo shows the folly in this course * how do we get the 8% to go from the 10% market penetration of true believers to the 18% tipping point of dominance? In service, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Spreading-Smalltalk-tp3435227p3435227.html Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi Sean, I liked Simon's talk too. So following Simon's theory and start with the "why", then "how" followed by "what": Why: Why does Smalltalk (still) exist, what does the Smalltalk community believe in and probably most importantly why should anyone care? How: How does Smalltalk do what it does, how is it designed, is it usable, intuitive, powerful ...? What: What does Smalltalk do, following Sean's examples; provide developer productivity, platform independence ... Looking at the above I really have a feeling that Smalltalk's "Why" already is - and always has been - very strong. The "what" is probably another reason why Smalltalk is still around after all these years. Smalltalk does provide powerful developer productivity and did lead the way in a myriad of other areas ... which other languages and/or IDE's have since taken on board. The "how" is where Smalltalk's Achilles' heel is. Recent success stories did create a resurgence of interest in Smalltalk as it did wonders for Smalltalk's perceived usefulness. Smalltalk still needs to focus more on the "how" in order not to lose those all important opinion leaders and early adopters that are fascinated by the "why" but have a gut feeling and feel like given the "perceived ease-of-use" Smalltalk may not be exactly what they are after. Find the right recipe to improve the "how", the design, look-and-feel and usability and these early adopters will stay and Smalltalk will cross the chasm and influence the early majority :) -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Spreading-Smalltalk-tp3435227p3435954.html Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

         Yours faithfully
               Niall Ross

Dear Sean, Geert et al, my first attempt. 1) Why: For coders, it's fun; Smalltalk is like a drug that you get addictd to. And why is that? It's because Smalltalk is productive and forgiving; productive _because_ it is forgiving. - Statically-typed languages say: assume you are clever. This is an IDE for coders who are clever enought to be right first time. - Smalltalk says: assume you have a lot to learn. This is an IDE for coders who are often wrong first time around. So, why? Because you will succeed in the real world, where you and your colleagues always have a lot to learn about every new task, not only in the imaginary world where flawless geeks grasp their work in a flash. 2) How: see my Value of Smalltalk talk in http://www.esug.org/data/ReportsFromNiallRoss/CSUGFrankfurtReport.pdf In brief: - The basic rule about optimisation - Do it later! - Static-typing: a gigantic, constraining, up-front optimisation 3) What: see my lists at the start of the ESUG 2011 conference page or on the poster (Thought: are these therefore too focussed on the what, not the why and how? I will review. Opinions welcome.) The above is in relation to mainstream languages. If I were discussing Smalltalk with a Rubyist I would a) be more respectiful of their language b) point at Smalltalk's maturity c) point at another value of Smalltalk - exceptionally easy to learn, easy to read. It was designed to be so from the start, and it is so. That's a why in relation to other dynamic languages. An aspect of the how is described in my old pages http://www.desk.org:8080/CampSmalltalk/new%20code%20syntax Yours faithfully Niall Ross Geert Claes wrote: >Hi Sean, I liked Simon's talk too. So following Simon's theory and start >with the "why", then "how" followed by "what": > >Why: Why does Smalltalk (still) exist, what does the Smalltalk community >believe in and probably most importantly why should anyone care? >How: How does Smalltalk do what it does, how is it designed, is it usable, >intuitive, powerful ...? >What: What does Smalltalk do, following Sean's examples; provide developer >productivity, platform independence ... > >Looking at the above I really have a feeling that Smalltalk's "Why" already >is - and always has been - very strong. > >The "what" is probably another reason why Smalltalk is still around after >all these years. Smalltalk does provide powerful developer productivity and >did lead the way in a myriad of other areas ... which other languages and/or >IDE's have since taken on board. > >The "how" is where Smalltalk's Achilles' heel is. Recent success stories >did create a resurgence of interest in Smalltalk as it did wonders for >Smalltalk's perceived usefulness. Smalltalk still needs to focus more on >the "how" in order not to lose those all important opinion leaders and early >adopters that are fascinated by the "why" but have a gut feeling and feel >like given the "perceived ease-of-use" Smalltalk may not be exactly what >they are after. Find the right recipe to improve the "how", the design, >look-and-feel and usability and these early adopters will stay and Smalltalk >will cross the chasm and influence the early majority :) > >-- >View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Spreading-Smalltalk-tp3435227p3435954.html >Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >_______________________________________________ >Esug-list mailing list >Esug-list@lists.esug.org >http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org > >______________________________________________________________________ >This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

Niall Ross-2 wrote: > > ... > b) point at Smalltalk's maturity > I am not sure if "Smalltalk's maturity" is the right choice of words ... simply because those people who do happen to know about Smalltalk already tend to imagine Smalltalkers to be old bearded men hanging on to their outdated language :) Niall Ross-2 wrote: > > c) point at another value of Smalltalk - exceptionally easy to learn, easy > to read. It was designed to be so from the start, and it is so. > I have to agree that the language and its syntax are easy and fast to learn ... but the typical Smalltalk IDE is probably not intuitive or inviting enough. Following Simon's theory again, those who are intrigued by the "why" and decide to explore the "how" by having a look at Smalltalk should have an instant wow-factor feeling ... unfortunately this wow-factor is hidden away further down in the "what" -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Spreading-Smalltalk-tp3435227p3436449.html Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Stealing the formula Simon uses in speaking about TiVo... Would you like to take total control of your computer? Have everything from the hardware up bend to your will? Imagine if you burned your thick, incomprehensible user manuals, and could simply dive into the inner workings of your machine like exploring a beautiful cave... if fixing a bug might take 5-10 minutes of your own creativity instead of #? calls/months/emails to a vendor... if your data and your workflow really were yours... If this turns you on, then boy do we have an environment for you. Smalltalk [all the things it does]... Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Spreading-Smalltalk-tp3435227p3437231.html Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

> The "what" is probably another reason why Smalltalk is still around after > all these years.  Smalltalk does provide powerful developer productivity and > did lead the way in a myriad of other areas ... which other languages and/or > IDE's have since taken on board. > Im always interested in how much people think is the language ( which is pretty similar to something like ruby ) vs. the environment is responsible for the perceived productivity boosts?