Let me tell you that the issue is far more complex and far more nuanced than any of the comments here unveil.
For some background, read this perspective from the Native Hawaiian community (http://www.welivemana.com/articles/sacredness-mauna-kea-explained?hc_location=ufi) and then also read this history from Harvard (http://www.pluralism.org/reports/view/21).
Mauna Kea is a flashpoint for Native Hawaiians because, as the Harvard report notes "it is also one of the most sacred places in the universe for Native Hawaiian people." Imagine putting an oil refinery inside the Masjid al-Haram or cell tower anchored in the Western Wall.
Interesting raw data, but be very careful about drawing broad conclusions from this fascinating but highly-self-selected set of companies: the spreadsheet lists mostly companies that are relatively young and almost entirely Web-facing.
The world of software development extends far, far beyond work that is clustered at the edges of the Internet.
OMG, please tell me you are not old enough to vote too.
We study influential software for the same reason we study the past in any domain: to learn of the forces that shape what is, the human stories that lead to these artifacts, the design decisions and the lessons learned therein. What you see on your desktop today is the current end of a long chain of "obsolete software" that includes MacPaint, and Whirlwind, and any number of earlier systems that bring us to current dominant designs. Economically significant and useful software intensive systems all have such a legacy, and your hubris in so quickly dismissing the value of understanding anything older than your professional lifetime is staggeringly depressing to me. May you never be on any development team that has to grapple with the refactoring of legacy code.
Just be clear, I'm not calling anyone stupid (remember what Clinton said? no no no, not "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." the other thing he said. about the economy.)
Two thoughts:
First, in a way, this is a silly discussion. Of course we need new languages. All interesting software-intensive systems are full of little languages (we just write them ourselves in other standard languages).
Second, it really isn't about the programming language. Yes, different languages make you think/act/work/abstract in fundamentally different ways, but ultimately it is the programming model of the surrounding libraries that has a greater impact on one's productivity.
I had the pleasure of conducting an oral history with the late John Backus. He reported that functional programming was a failure for the general case, for it was easy to do hard things but hard to do easy things.
I don't know what war you think functional programming is winning, but it only shows up on the minor sideline of the wars i'm engaged in.
Over the past two years, I've conducted close to 50 lectures and business meetings in Second Life. This has save me time - I can easily appear "live" to an audience half a world away without the attendant cost of time to get there - and it has saved IBM money - I'm shipping my bits, not my atoms. I created an avatar that looks very much like me in real life, and by using voice inside Second Life, the overall experience for those with whom I interact is close enough to real life to be good enough for real business use, especially given the economic benefit. Before the end of the year, I'll have started a virtual office on one of the IBM islands where I'll be holding regular office hours - something that many Lindens already do - for we do have an in world community that spans the world, and this will actually extend my reach.
So, it's not about the economics of buying and selling virtual things in world; for me, it's using a virtual world as an extension of my real world. Being in world is subtly better than NetMeeting (which works ok for point meetings but not so well with multiple attendees...and besides, I prefer to use real operating systems, so I only have Mac and Linux machines around) and - especially when I'm connecting to places where the network infrastructure is less well developed - requires no special equipment on the distant ends. When all the folks with whom I'm interacting are in world, social interaction carries out much like in the real world, with small groups forming and reforming. This is better than video for me, as it to some degrees encourages serendipitous communication and addresses the watercooler problem.
Lest you think I'm a shill for IBM, please note that I'm only a minor player in the larger metaverse community that has evolved at our grassroots. There's more going on than I can describe here, with regard to IBM's internal use of virtual worlds (as one brief example, we just held our first Academy meeting entirely in world; additionally, given these economic times, a life Academy meeting had been cancelled - but in its place there will be, among other things, an in world meeting).
With growing energy costs, conducting business in world as an extension of the real world is where I, for one, am reaping economic value.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me tell you that the issue is far more complex and far more nuanced than any of the comments here unveil.
For some background, read this perspective from the Native Hawaiian community (http://www.welivemana.com/articles/sacredness-mauna-kea-explained?hc_location=ufi) and then also read this history from Harvard (http://www.pluralism.org/reports/view/21).
Mauna Kea is a flashpoint for Native Hawaiians because, as the Harvard report notes "it is also one of the most sacred places in the universe for Native Hawaiian people." Imagine putting an oil refinery inside the Masjid al-Haram or cell tower anchored in the Western Wall.
Interesting raw data, but be very careful about drawing broad conclusions from this fascinating but highly-self-selected set of companies: the spreadsheet lists mostly companies that are relatively young and almost entirely Web-facing.
The world of software development extends far, far beyond work that is clustered at the edges of the Internet.
OMG, please tell me you are not old enough to vote too.
We study influential software for the same reason we study the past in any domain: to learn of the forces that shape what is, the human stories that lead to these artifacts, the design decisions and the lessons learned therein. What you see on your desktop today is the current end of a long chain of "obsolete software" that includes MacPaint, and Whirlwind, and any number of earlier systems that bring us to current dominant designs. Economically significant and useful software intensive systems all have such a legacy, and your hubris in so quickly dismissing the value of understanding anything older than your professional lifetime is staggeringly depressing to me. May you never be on any development team that has to grapple with the refactoring of legacy code.
BTW, the source for MacPaint is available online at the Computer History Museum:
http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-quickdraw-source-code/
Just be clear, I'm not calling anyone stupid (remember what Clinton said? no no no, not "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." the other thing he said. about the economy.)
Two thoughts:
First, in a way, this is a silly discussion. Of course we need new languages. All interesting software-intensive systems are full of little languages (we just write them ourselves in other standard languages).
Second, it really isn't about the programming language. Yes, different languages make you think/act/work/abstract in fundamentally different ways, but ultimately it is the programming model of the surrounding libraries that has a greater impact on one's productivity.
I had the pleasure of conducting an oral history with the late John Backus. He reported that functional programming was a failure for the general case, for it was easy to do hard things but hard to do easy things.
I don't know what war you think functional programming is winning, but it only shows up on the minor sideline of the wars i'm engaged in.
Over the past two years, I've conducted close to 50 lectures and business meetings in Second Life. This has save me time - I can easily appear "live" to an audience half a world away without the attendant cost of time to get there - and it has saved IBM money - I'm shipping my bits, not my atoms. I created an avatar that looks very much like me in real life, and by using voice inside Second Life, the overall experience for those with whom I interact is close enough to real life to be good enough for real business use, especially given the economic benefit. Before the end of the year, I'll have started a virtual office on one of the IBM islands where I'll be holding regular office hours - something that many Lindens already do - for we do have an in world community that spans the world, and this will actually extend my reach.
So, it's not about the economics of buying and selling virtual things in world; for me, it's using a virtual world as an extension of my real world. Being in world is subtly better than NetMeeting (which works ok for point meetings but not so well with multiple attendees...and besides, I prefer to use real operating systems, so I only have Mac and Linux machines around) and - especially when I'm connecting to places where the network infrastructure is less well developed - requires no special equipment on the distant ends. When all the folks with whom I'm interacting are in world, social interaction carries out much like in the real world, with small groups forming and reforming. This is better than video for me, as it to some degrees encourages serendipitous communication and addresses the watercooler problem.
Lest you think I'm a shill for IBM, please note that I'm only a minor player in the larger metaverse community that has evolved at our grassroots. There's more going on than I can describe here, with regard to IBM's internal use of virtual worlds (as one brief example, we just held our first Academy meeting entirely in world; additionally, given these economic times, a life Academy meeting had been cancelled - but in its place there will be, among other things, an in world meeting).
With growing energy costs, conducting business in world as an extension of the real world is where I, for one, am reaping economic value.