All of the above = a huge bag of hurt that presents some damn near insurmountable problems (leadership, on its own, is a huge issue).
To be honest, I don't know how one would get past those things without first deciding, with a clear conscience, to hijack Ruby from Matz. I know that sounds malicious, but even Dave Thomas is calling for a fork of the language. Seems to me that forking is not quite what we need, as it keeps the language rooted in the past, bringing the performance baggage with it (you're still having to re-implement the loose idea of the Ruby spec, which as you pointed out, presents some really hard problems).
No, maybe we need someone smart, loud, and with balls big enough to arbitrate their way through whatever gray areas are left with Ruby's loose idea of a spec, perhaps make some tough calls on what language features can reasonably be supported, decide what needs to be cut, and break compatibility with existing Ruby code if necessary. To top it off? This person forms a foundation around it, a la Python.org, to ensure that the language is left in good hands, gets proper funding for new development, patches, etc (hell, I would love to donate to Ruby development if I knew the money would be put to good use. I don't have that confidence now).
Of course, what I'm talking about now is not Ruby, but a new thing. This new thing could be quite awesome. Whatever this new thing would be is still years out, even if someone decided today that they would do it.
But seriously, anyone know if Parrot is a realistic vehicle for this?
It's just puzzling to me that with all the demand for a better interpreter, there really aren't any available options that are going to satisfy the community at large, and there's no visible light at the end of the tunnel. Is this because Ruby is a particularly difficult language to implement? Is it because there is no formal spec? Lack of leadership (compare with Guido and Larry)? All of the above?
I have to second the headphones idea. And if you don't think you like techno or trance music, you might change your mind after you code while listening to it (which is about the only time I listen to it).
Stuff with a white-noisy background and a steady, brisk rhythm tends to block out the din of the workplace and helps me stay focused for longer periods of time. Was the only way I could cope with the loud, obnoxious sales staff sitting nearby. Oh, and avoid music with lyrics.
Ok, awesome. And that's the same story as RubyGems. I've noticed that Python peeps are pretty big on "show me the code" anyway, but I think a lot of untapped potential is lost by not having a dead-simple distribution mechanism, as good as Python libs tend to be overall.
That's one thing I do like about Ruby; it wasn't always this way, but RubyForge + GitHub (Oh, GitHub!) + RubyGems combine to make for a very fluid feedback mechanism and make good use of The Cloud.
The result is that new libs get announced, distributed, tested, and improved by rabid Rubyists rather... rapidly.
I don't think Blue Ocean strategy is foremost about convincing people that only you have the right solution, but rather that you are an 'alternative' solution. You might not be the "best" solution for everyone, but you can certainly focus on being the best solution for a smaller subset of unmet needs.
As I understand it, Blue Ocean is primarily about differentiating yourself in the marketplace in such a way that you get to own your own space. Lock-in may be a consequence of it, but I think that's still missing the point.
Take Apple or Nintendo, for instance. Dell or HP competing with Apple is like XBox or Playstation competing with Nintendo. Nintendo has defined its own space, which it basically owns almost completely. Neither Sony or MS are likely to be very successful at cracking the Nintendo market because of the unique mindshare and approach to gaming that Nintendo has. Most of the time, Sony and MS will be busier competing for the same customers in that space over there.
Apple has done something similar. Competition with Apple tends to be indirect, more often than not. How does Apple continue to grow despite the lousy economic outlook for other computer manufacturers? How was it able to insulate itself?
"Apple" is essentially its own marketplace with its own ecosystem.
Another corollary might be the idea of "opinionated software". If you have an opinion on how something could be done better, well then you may have just identified your target market - your own "Blue Ocean" - and these are going to be the people who have the same unmet needs as you and wish for the same things you do.
"Man, I sure like [insert product or service here], but what would really make it sweet is..."
That's when you know you're onto something.
In any market, you can find gaps and cracks where products and services don't overlap, and possibly never will for a variety of reasons. Those gaps represent opportunities. Most of these may not turn out to be billion-dollar opportunities, but they are probably profitable enough to satisfy most of our ambitions.
A good point. But, Forbes never should have published this article anytime after 1999. The idea of "Four Tens" and "Power Shifts" (as they call it in business-speak) is not a new idea, and really only works for certain types of people in certain roles.
A magazine like Forbes should be writing about newer ideas, something along the lines of a 32-hour workweek (37S was not the first to have this idea, as I'm sure many of you must know).
This article starts off assuming that a four-day workweek entails cramming the usual 40 hour workweek into 4 days instead of 5. I stopped reading right there, because the idea of "Four Tens" or "Power Shifts" aren't new ideas and really only work for certain types of people in certain roles.
People aren't robots. Just because you're getting the same amount of time per week from them doesn't mean you're the getting the same efficiency too. 37S has already expanded on this topic and I fully agree.
I get frustrated with these kinds of articles where the author demonstrates their lack of willingness to think outside the box or attempt to grasp some counter-intuitive ideas on this topic.
A workweek of four, eight-hour workdays with the option to work into your 3-day weekend on occasion is the way to go for a lot of traditional 9-5 office jobs, IMO. Your "Four Tens" and "Power Shifts" are going to burn out a lot of people unnecessarily. What I fear is that some companies will start experimenting with a 4-day workweek by compressing more human time into fewer days and will be unhappy with the results they get, thus returning to the standard 5-day workweek with the claim that their experiment failed and 4-day workweeks "don't actually work". The State of California is experimenting in this exact same manner now (Yes, the State of California - the gold standard in efficiency, right?).
As for those of us who have been bitten by the entrepreneurship bug, I think many of us actually can be more productive in working long hours - maybe even as much as 7 days a week - but that's because we are energized and driven by our vision. And ultimately, it's our choice anyway.
Not to be an ass, but wake me when we're ready to talk some sense here.
Easy to take cron for granted these days, but I have to say I agree.
As for unix pipes, I once explained how one of my shell scripts worked to a longtime Windows programmer and he literally said, "Holy shit!" when the pipes concept clicked.
I dropped out of the JC I was attending and just started finding better ways of doing things (read: "developed technical solutions") at each company I worked for, regardless of what the position was. Although I would like to make more money, I trained myself, followed my interests, and now - relatively speaking - I have an above average salary, both for my current position and the region I live in.
College, in my case, was totally unnecessary. Yet I'm a DBA/Developer for a respected Fortune 500 company.