People choose a programming environment based on (most important
first):
- what everybody else is using
- what seems familiar to them
- what is cool
- what is good
IMHO there is one criteria that comes in front of those. First
environment needs to be able to produce cool results. If environment
can do some others can not, people will be using it even if it
requires use of line editor. So being able to produce cool aps is our
priority zero.
To some extent that intersects with 3), and I'd include it in 4) too: what you can produce, and how productive you are in doing it. I stand by my claim that 1) and 2) are more important in achieving mass success. 4) just helps guarantee a long life.
Mind you, 1) should be rephrased to "what everybody else seems to be using", and a big score on 3) can outweigh a smaller difference on 1) and 2) over time: your message will get media coverage and some evaluators, helping to address 2) and 1) bit by bit.
Steve
Davorin Rusevljan wrote:
> Steven Kelly <stevek@metacase.com> wrote:
> > People choose a programming environment based on (most important
> > first):
> >
> > 1) what everybody else is using
> > 2) what seems familiar to them
> > 3) what is cool
> > 4) what is good
>
> IMHO there is one criteria that comes in front of those. First
> environment needs to be able to produce cool results. If environment
> can do some others can not, people will be using it even if it
> requires use of line editor. So being able to produce cool aps is our
> priority zero.
To some extent that intersects with 3), and I'd include it in 4) too: what you can produce, and how productive you are in doing it. I stand by my claim that 1) and 2) are more important in achieving mass success. 4) just helps guarantee a long life.
Mind you, 1) should be rephrased to "what everybody else seems to be using", and a big score on 3) can outweigh a smaller difference on 1) and 2) over time: your message will get media coverage and some evaluators, helping to address 2) and 1) bit by bit.
Steve
