If this comes to pass, one has to wonder if, just as political incompetence brought about the sunset of American world dominance, this sort of short sighted, ethically bankrupt, style of capitalism will not go unpunished.
I have no doubt that IBM is awash with inefficiency, however, I do not imagine that the companies future propsects, reputation and commercial viability figure as highly in this deciscion as the vast sums to be paid to executives to meet arbitrary figures, probably set by the same people making the deciscion and reaping the reward.
One can only hope that at some point in their lives, someone will visit the same misery on these people that leaks so freely from their fountain pens.
I have been following dylan for a while and I really appreciate its aesthetics.
I never really understood why Apple ceased development, other than a baby with the bath water mistake; it seems a far more appopriate and elegant language than objective-c for application development.
I'd appreciate all your comments and I would especially like to know how Paul G feels about Dylan as a blubbified lisp / scheme.
They didn't have the courage to make it a real Lisp, but they didn't dumb it down enough to appeal to mainstream programmers, so they ended up producing something that no one really loved, except possibly its parents.
Java is the only case I can think of where a company managed to force its programmers to start using a new language created for them. In 1995 you had to at least make the syntax look like C. That's probably less true now that so many programmers are used to Python and Ruby. But most ordinary programmers would probably still panic at the idea of writing code in s-expressions.
An excellent example of how to use technology to make a system seamless and intuitive. We would all do well to understand that it doesn't matter if the system is written in ab programming language, using the xyz framework and rst database; it is the fact that it usable and available that makes it a successfull application.
I have no doubt that IBM is awash with inefficiency, however, I do not imagine that the companies future propsects, reputation and commercial viability figure as highly in this deciscion as the vast sums to be paid to executives to meet arbitrary figures, probably set by the same people making the deciscion and reaping the reward.
One can only hope that at some point in their lives, someone will visit the same misery on these people that leaks so freely from their fountain pens.