Interesting read, and most of the points he makes are very relevant to
the ruby community.
martin
Martin DeMello wrote:
Interesting read, and most of the points he makes are very relevant to
the ruby community.martin
2 words: “Vocal Minority.”
Yes, in every situation, there were very vocal people who will speak
their minds and give their highly ego-centric opinions. The fact that
it’s hard or impossible to hear anyone else over them doesn’t mean they
are right or in the majority.
I’ll even go as far as to say he’s fallen into his own trap. He
-expects- people to advocate, and sees that in everything that happens.
His Perl linked-lists example is the perfect example. He expects people
to think he’s advocating and would write his FAQ accordingly. The FAQ
writer (Avi) was shocked that he thought this way. The ML/Perl Typing
example is another great one. The question “But what’s wrong with the
way Perl does it?” can be re-worded as “How is it better than Perl’s
way?” This is not advocacy, or expectation of advocacy, but a simple
comparison to what the user already knows: Perl’s way.
And the last reason for this being the Vocal Minority… Why would you
try to spread the word about something if you were -not- advocating it?
(Or trying to persuade people not to use it, I suppose.) You wouldn’t.
So expectation of advocacy in a blog or presentation is not unrealistic.
You have a -reason- to be letting others know about the item, and it’s
probably that you like it and want others to use it/know about it also.
I agree about the sports fans, though. But I think it’s a different
reason. Fans don’t pick their teams on logic. It’s cultural and
emotional. And in order to enjoy it fully, they heavily invest
themselves in these emotional ties. They gain nothing from complacency
and everything from zealotry. Expect them to truly care when they
answer surveys about their sport. Even if there’s no logic in the
caring.
William C. wrote:
Fans don’t pick their teams on logic. It’s cultural and emotional.
Yeah, that’s so totally different from why programmers chose their
favorite programming language.
On 9/11/06, Martin DeMello [email protected] wrote:
Interesting read, and most of the points he makes are very relevant to
the ruby community.martin
It actually was somewhat interesting. It goes without saying that you
get a
lot of advantages if you can induce other people to see things your way.
That’s why advocacy exists, and why it will always exist. Most of the
article is yet another rehearsal of the eternal truth that people will
react
in what seem to be irrational ways to better ideas that expose them to
risk
or threaten to obsolete their own investments in time and knowledge.
How does it apply to Ruby? It’s been said for decades that the potential
market for any new technology splits into a small sliver of first
adopters,
a large chunk of converts, a near-equally large chunk of resisters, and
a
small sliver of non-adopters. The first adopters respond to either
passion,
reason, or both, but primarily they either discount or are willing to
accept
the risk of the new. The converts will come along only after you can
prove
two things: 1) there are clear benefits, and 2) they’re not the first
ones
to try it. (The resisters and the non-adopters are not economically
interesting and can be ignored.)
Ruby’s two main benefits (and they are related) are that programmers
find it
beautiful and graceful, and that it promises large productivity
improvements. Ruby programmers love programming in Ruby. That’s
proven,
and the passion there is enough to pull in more first adopters. As far
as
productivity improvements go, that is a clear benefit that we have yet
to
conclusively prove is 1) large and 2) uniformly available. When we do
so,
then the converts will come. But it will take time (and continued
advocacy)
because the defining feature of the convert-class is that they are not
willing to go first.
William C. wrote:
I agree about the sports fans, though. But I think it’s a different
reason. Fans don’t pick their teams on logic. It’s cultural and
emotional. And in order to enjoy it fully, they heavily invest
themselves in these emotional ties. They gain nothing from complacency
and everything from zealotry. Expect them to truly care when they
answer surveys about their sport. Even if there’s no logic in the
caring.
Sometimes I wonder if people exercise logic in their choice
of software tools, or in any other area of life.
Hal
On 11.09.2006 08:34, Martin DeMello wrote:
Interesting read, and most of the points he makes are very relevant to
the ruby community.
Just to throw in my 0.02 EUR… Although there is some advocacy of the
kind that Mark describes going on in here I also find that - compared to
other forums - the percentage of reasonable comments is higher. (IOW:
since Ruby is The Light, its community is as well. :-))
Kind regards
robert
On 9/11/2006, “William C.” [email protected] wrote:
Yes, in every situation, there were very vocal people who will speak
way Perl does it?" can be re-worded as “How is it better than Perl’s
way?” This is not advocacy, or expectation of advocacy, but a simple
comparison to what the user already knows: Perl’s way.
I think you missed a point he was trying to make about the FAQ. If you
answer with only, “Linked Lists are not required” then you risk a
conclusing that Perl is bad because it is incapable of doing a simple
task like linked lists. It’s a legitimate defensive position to take.
What is Ruby’s position to the question, “Is it fast?”. Is the answer
a simple, “No” or is it more to the effect of “Ruby is fast enough in
production but even faster in development”? I’ve typically heard the
second answer.
Simple benchmarking shows Ruby to be considerably slower than Perl –
for
me. Is it fast enough? When my development logs in rails says I can
hit 300 pages / second it’s fast enough – for me.
And the last reason for this being the Vocal Minority… Why would you
try to spread the word about something if you were -not- advocating it?
(Or trying to persuade people not to use it, I suppose.) You wouldn’t.
So expectation of advocacy in a blog or presentation is not unrealistic.
You have a -reason- to be letting others know about the item, and it’s
probably that you like it and want others to use it/know about it also.
Because it has some interesting features, fast development, and may
prove
to be something really worthwhile. Developers should be aware of what
else is on the horizon that people are excited about.
But I’m not going to risk advocating it in a production environment with
over a million dollars a day passing through it. Not until I have a
LOT more personal experience with the details.
Tom A. wrote:
I think you missed a point he was trying to make about the FAQ. If you
answer with only, “Linked Lists are not required” then you risk a
conclusing that Perl is bad because it is incapable of doing a simple
task like linked lists. It’s a legitimate defensive position to take.
No, I got the point… I was merely commenting on his reason vs the
FAQ-writer’s reason. They ended up in the same place, but the
FAQ-writer was surprised at his reasoning.
What is Ruby’s position to the question, “Is it fast?”. Is the answer
a simple, “No” or is it more to the effect of “Ruby is fast enough in
production but even faster in development”? I’ve typically heard the
second answer.Simple benchmarking shows Ruby to be considerably slower than Perl –
for
me. Is it fast enough? When my development logs in rails says I can
hit 300 pages / second it’s fast enough – for me.And the last reason for this being the Vocal Minority… Why would you
try to spread the word about something if you were -not- advocating it?
(Or trying to persuade people not to use it, I suppose.) You wouldn’t.
So expectation of advocacy in a blog or presentation is not unrealistic.
You have a -reason- to be letting others know about the item, and it’s
probably that you like it and want others to use it/know about it also.Because it has some interesting features, fast development, and may
prove
to be something really worthwhile. Developers should be aware of what
else is on the horizon that people are excited about.But I’m not going to risk advocating it in a production environment with
over a million dollars a day passing through it. Not until I have a
LOT more personal experience with the details.
Eh, I don’t get where you were going here. You are saying you DO
advocate people learn/learn about Ruby outside of a work environment.
Blogs are often outside of a work environment also. But that actually
has nothing to do with the fact that if you write in a blog, you are
telling other people about something with little or no expectation of a
response. This is advocating. (Or the opposite, of course.) Nobody
makes wikipedia-entry type blog posts that have no bias. People do,
however, ask and answer questions with no bias when asked in a
conversation. (On the internet or off, doesn’t matter.)
(I hope the torches are locked up…) I don’t yet advocate Ruby for
anything. I don’t know it well enough. But if asked, I would explain
that most Ruby programmers enjoy programming Ruby more than any other
language, and feel they are a -lot- more productive at it. I have no
proof, and I don’t feel this way personally (yet, anyhow) but I can say
this totally non-biased. If I made a blog post, I am not answering
someone’s question but actively seeking to give my opinion on it. There
would be no point in a blog post telling what others think that I don’t
have enough experience in myself.
But then, IANAB. I don’t blog. Maybe I totally misunderstand the alure
of blogging and it’s actually just a place to beat your chest and
pretend you’re wonderful. (I sure hope not, because that says bad
things about all of society.) Maybe they do just write to be read, and
don’t care what they’re saying. Totally possible.
William C. wrote:
But then, IANAB. I don’t blog.
Blind leading the blind… I don’t blog either!!! 
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:45:35PM +0900, Robert K. wrote:
On 11.09.2006 08:34, Martin DeMello wrote:
Interesting read, and most of the points he makes are very relevant to
the ruby community.Just to throw in my 0.02 EUR… Although there is some advocacy of the
kind that Mark describes going on in here I also find that - compared to
other forums - the percentage of reasonable comments is higher. (IOW:
since Ruby is The Light, its community is as well. :-))
. . . as opposed to The Heat, which conjures all the wrong notions.
On 2006-09-14, John J. [email protected] wrote:
Advocacy is most influential to me when it is presented as “This is
why I like …” (after I ask), rather than “You should …”
I think the most influential advocacy goes “If your needs include
… then this will meet your needs because …”. The person you’re
targeting probably doesn’t care in the least what you like or why you
like it, they just want to know if it will yield value for them.
Regards,
Jeremy H.
Jeremy H. wrote:
Regards,
Jeremy H.
Doesn’t advocacy == marketing ?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:56:18 -0400, Francis C.
[email protected] wrote:
On 9/11/06, Martin DeMello [email protected] wrote:
Interesting read, and most of the points he makes are very relevant to
the ruby community.It actually was somewhat interesting. It goes without saying that you
get a
lot of advantages if you can induce other people to see things your way.
Very interesting read, indeed.
One point that adovacy of anything computer related has going against it
is most of the people in “IT” are weinies, with a deficit of social
skills
(myself included). Not everyone, but a disproportinate number.
Advocacy is most influential to me when it is presented as “This is why
I
like …” (after I ask), rather than “You should …” Those “shoulds”
are
the mark of a zealot.
Regards,
JJ
Tom A. wrote:
Doesn’t advocacy == marketing ?
Marketing typically implies being paid. Advocacy just means that you
are encouraging others to use something.
It is quite common now for celebrities to be a paid advocate now, of
course, but that doesn’t mean they can’t/don’t do it just because they
like the product.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the less famous someone is, the less
likely it is they are being paid to advocate and the more likely that
they actually just like the product so much that they think others
should use it.
Unfortunately, companies have recently figured out how to get the
unwashed masses to advertise/advocate for them and we call that ‘viral
marketing.’ It’s quite effective with the sheeple.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 08:07:34PM +0900, William C. wrote:
Unfortunately, companies have recently figured out how to get the
unwashed masses to advertise/advocate for them and we call that ‘viral
marketing.’ It’s quite effective with the sheeple.
In some really egregious cases, we call it “astroturfing”.
On 9/15/06, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
Strictly speaking, not necessarily. Advocacy is basically about
convincing people that something is good. Marketing is about fueling
the revenue stream. Advocacy, even when wildly successful, can
sometimes actually reduce profitability, and can sometimes run at
cross-purposes to marketing.
For present purposes, this probably qualifies as nit-picking, but
sales is
about fueling the revenue stream. Marketing is about matching
capabilities
to needs, at identified price points (and the price point may be zero).
“For many purposes, however, advocacy and marketing are roughly
equivalent.”
I’d say that for many purposes, advocacy and sales are roughly
equivalent,
since sales involves the task of persuading people.
Chad P. wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 08:07:34PM +0900, William C. wrote:
Unfortunately, companies have recently figured out how to get the
unwashed masses to advertise/advocate for them and we call that ‘viral
marketing.’ It’s quite effective with the sheeple.In some really egregious cases, we call it “astroturfing”.
“astroturfing” is a great word, for an interesting concept, but a
different thing from viral marketing.
Of course, groups engaged in astroturfing may use viral marketing among
their tools to bamboozle people.
–
James B.
http://web2.0validator.com - We’re the Dot in Web 2.0
http://www.rubyaz.org - Hacking in the Desert
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
William C. wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
Doesn’t advocacy == marketing ?
Marketing typically implies being paid.
Which answers the original question, because advocacy is what fanatics
do,
and marketing is what salespeople do. Fanatics will try to “sell” you
what
they are offering up to and including blowing you up. Salespeople don’t
do
that, because next week they will need to sell you something else.
Comparing advocates and salespeople is roughly equivalent to comparing
terrorists and lawyers. The point is that lawyers don’t care what side
they
are on, because if they did their effectiveness would be ruined. For
terrorists, there is only one side.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 15, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Paul L. wrote:
you what
they are offering up to and including blowing you up. Salespeople
don’t do
that, because next week they will need to sell you something else.
Advocacy could also simply mean someone who is passionate about
something, because it is good. Whereas marketing takes place all the
time for bad products; the salesman may not actually approve of the
product.
David M.
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFFCs3SUy30ODPkzl0RAvliAKCXgiwfo2augKG8G+sRCJRTuGGPvgCgkUc6
bkP+E7hQ/McOu0jTHwj6mJ8=
=Iz0Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 07:47:39PM +0900, Tom A. wrote:
Doesn’t advocacy == marketing ?
Strictly speaking, not necessarily. Advocacy is basically about
convincing people that something is good. Marketing is about fueling
the revenue stream. Advocacy, even when wildly successful, can
sometimes actually reduce profitability, and can sometimes run at
cross-purposes to marketing.
For instance, a lot of Linux advocacy actually diverts people who might
otherwise give money to Red Hat toward community-based distributions.
For many purposes, however, advocacy and marketing are roughly
equivalent.