| Björn Helgason 2005-07-28, 8:59 am |
| I can agree with some of your statements but your conclusions are a bit
off
Jim Foyle wrote:
> <loyfitz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121447566.298593.195990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> snip
>
> The fact is that APL is failing in the marketplace. Is
This is not a fact
Apl is as such not the mainstream but Apl is by no means failing
J a dialect of Apl is growing and it has an active community and very
powerful supporters
Several other dialects are doing well
> this because the marketplace is dumb? Or does the APL
> product have one or more defects that explains this
> failure?
Some defects in some dialects are obviously a cause for some users
abandoning that particular dialect
Apl as a whole has had many dialects over the years and some have past
away because other dialects have come to replace them
>
> snip
>
> This is something that has been discussed in sociology/management
> literature, not specifically for APL, but more generally for the past 25
> years or so.
>
> APL is a very fine language,
We can agree on that part
> I've always liked it.
So do I and a lot of others
> The problem is, it does
> not fit into a heirarchical corporate structure.
That may be true for some, even many domapnies but certainly not all
> Eventually, management
> everywhere will do away with it because it is antithetical to internal
> corporate goals. I stress that these goals are not necessary profit
> oriented. They are more work control and subordination of employees.
>
That conclusion is wrong based on some wrong facts
> APL tends to empower individuals to the detriment of the corporation being
> able to control work and keep employee costs down.
There is something to this
Also Apl in the right hands is a powerful tool
In the wrong hands idiots can quickly ruin things in a few statements
> The actuarial examples
> are apt for this point. The APL programmer, in this case usually an actua=
ry,
> tends to remove control of the actuarial work from the corporation because
> he wrote and controls a program important to the organization. That causes
> problems.
>
That is obviously not very nice to paticipate in blackmail
It is not nice to pay the programmer less than he deserves
> One is quite simple. The actuary leaves. Now management has a complex
> program on its hands that it doesn't understand and cannot readily keep up
> to date. Contrast this with the corporate ideal: The Analyst who doesn't
> know how to program but understands the actuary requirements. He writes t=
he
> Requirements. The Software Engineer doesn't understand actuarial science
> (nor insurance) but does, supposedly, understand programming. He parcels =
the
> work out to lowly programmers who can code their assignment, but don't
> understand the Big Picture. Finally, there is "development" which it turns
> out isn't development at all, but maintenance. That is, retrofitting chan=
ges
> into the old code, now patched up garbage held together with baling wire.
> The Corporate Ideal of course is unattainable, but you should be able to =
see
> it is a mirror of corporate organization, which, by the way, has been
> tracked back to the military. Top-down, structured all the way.
Wrong people assigned
>
> Another is more complex, it is political. The expert APLer is willy-nilly=
in
> a position that the corporation must cope with. Management doesn't like
> that.
>
wrong people in management - very common in middle management
> There are a couple of excellent books covering this problem though not APL
> specifically. I thoroughly recommend Joan Greenbaum "In the Name of
> Efficiency" which deals directly with the programmer's lot and management=
's
> drive to deskill him. And there is the classic on engineers, of which
> programmers are descendents, David Noble "America by Design."
>
Looking forward to read those books
> APL empowers individuals vis-=E0-vis the corporation. What is wanted is
> programming that deskills individuals and enhances corporate structure.
> Since the corporation has the power, not the individual, APL is doomed.
There you are making the wrong conclusion based on misleading facts
|