On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 16:21:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> In my opinion language adoption is a seduction/sales process very much like business-to-consumer is, the way I see it it's strikingly similar to marketing B2C apps, unless there will be no "impulse buy".
>
> I find that hard to believe: we are talking about a technical tool here.

How many times have you been in this conversation:

--------------------------

- What language are you using?
- D.
- I know next to nothing about D.
- Oh, it's very good, I even built a business on it! <laundry list of arguments and features>.
- Oh no thanks. I should try Rust, it's secure, fast, modern blah blah; facts don't matter to me. But in reality I won't even learn a new language, I'm happy with a language without multi-threading.

--------------------------

It happens to me ALL THE TIME.
This pattern is so predictable it's becoming boring so now I just keep silent.

What happens? Rust / Go have outmarketed us with words.

The battle (of marketing) is on words not technical features, Rust happen to own "programming language" + "safety", what do we own? D is good in all kinds of directions and the marketing message is less simple.

The leaders choose to own the word "fast" (see our new motto "fast code, fast" which is very accurate) and it's important to get aligned.


> Also, regardless of how languages are chosen as they get into the majority, D is very much still in the innovators/early-adopters stage:

But the current state of D would very much accomodate the middle-of-the-curve adopters. The language rarely breaks stuff. People making money with it, making long-term bets.

Hell, I could make a laundry list of things that are better in D versus any alternatives! That doesn't bring users.


> With people like that, it's almost impossible to get them in the early adopter stage. They will only jump on the bandwagon once it's full, ie as part of the late majority.

There is a gap where we are, but "People like that" are almost everyone.

Those people actually are middle-of-the-curve adopter, if you see a true late adopter in the wild it takes 3 relatives programming in D so that they start to be interested.

Who doesn't want to be out of the early adopter stage, and get into the "officially endorsed safe choice" cohort?

D is remarkably ready as a safe choice for lots of software.


> Given how well it did on HN/reddit/lobste.rs, I think Vlad's gamble probably paid off. We can't run the counterfactual of choosing a safer title to see if it would have done even better, let's just say it did well enough. ;)

Alternative darker view: ever remarked how D articles often goes downvoted on HN? The title who says something bad about D is upvoted ; it's easy to see events as going our way. I, for one, didn't really read the article. Who has time for that?

On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 16:42:40 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 16:21:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
>> I agree that it was a risky title, as many who don't know D will simply see it and go, "Yet another slow compiler, eh, I'll pass" and not click on the link. Whereas others who have heard something of D will be intrigued, as they know it's already supposed to compile fast. And yet more others will click on it purely for the controversy, just to gawk at some technical bickering.
>
> I don't actually think it was risky. What are the odds that someone was going to start using D for a major project but then changed her mind upon seeing a title on HN or Reddit? Probably very small that even one person did that.

Yes, but you're ignoring the much larger group I mentioned- those who only vaguely heard of D, if at all- and the negative title gives them a reason not to look into it further.

> And then there is always the fact that there was a story on HN/Reddit about D. It's hard for publicity for a language like D to be bad when so few people use it.

The quote that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" comes from art and show business though, don't think it's true for tech and other markets. When your audience is looking for a tool and not entertainment, there's lots of ways for bad publicity to sink it.

Anyway, I noted in this case that the provocative title may actually have gotten more people to read a positive post, so the pros likely outweighed the cons. We can just never know how large the unclicked-on downside was: you can never measure how many people heard of but _didn't_ buy your book, because they didn't like the title or something else about its exterior.

On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 16:53:59 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 16:21:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> In my opinion language adoption is a seduction/sales process very much like business-to-consumer is, the way I see it it's strikingly similar to marketing B2C apps, unless there will be no "impulse buy".
>>
>> I find that hard to believe: we are talking about a technical tool here.
>
> How many times have you been in this conversation:
>
> --------------------------
>
> - What language are you using?
> - D.
> - I know next to nothing about D.
> - Oh, it's very good, I even built a business on it! <laundry list of arguments and features>.
> - Oh no thanks. I should try Rust, it's secure, fast, modern blah blah; facts don't matter to me. But in reality I won't even learn a new language, I'm happy with a language without multi-threading.
>
> --------------------------
>
> It happens to me ALL THE TIME.
> This pattern is so predictable it's becoming boring so now I just keep silent.

Never, I don't go around trying to convince people one-on-one to use D. I have given talks to groups introducing the language, that's how I go about it.

> What happens? Rust / Go have outmarketed us with words.
>
> The battle (of marketing) is on words not technical features, Rust happen to own "programming language" + "safety", what do we own? D is good in all kinds of directions and the marketing message is less simple.
>
> The leaders choose to own the word "fast" (see our new motto "fast code, fast" which is very accurate) and it's important to get aligned.

I'll note that in your example they haven't actually learnt Rust either. I don't think marketing is that relevant for D at this stage, nor for Rust/Go either.

The way anything- tech, fashion, TV shows- becomes popular is that some early tastemaker decides that it's worth using or backing. Eventually, enough early adopters find value that it spreads out to the majority, who simply follow their lead.

Most people aren't early adopters of most things. They like to think they are, so they'll give you all kinds of rational-sounding reasons for why they don't like some new tech, but the real underlying thought process goes something like this, "I have no idea if this new tech will do well or not. I could take a risk on it but it's safer not to, so I will just wait and see if it gets popular, then follow the herd."

Very few will admit this though, hence the list of plausible-sounding reasons that don't actually make sense! ;)

As Laeeth always says, you're best off looking for people who're actually capable and empowered to make such risky decisions, rather than aiming for the majority too early, because they only jump on board once the bandwagon is stuffed and rolling downhill.

>> Also, regardless of how languages are chosen as they get into the majority, D is very much still in the innovators/early-adopters stage:
>
> But the current state of D would very much accomodate the middle-of-the-curve adopters. The language rarely breaks stuff. People making money with it, making long-term bets.
>
> Hell, I could make a laundry list of things that are better in D versus any alternatives! That doesn't bring users.

I'm not talking about the quality of the product. I'm talking about the current size of the userbase, which is still in the early adopter stage.

>> With people like that, it's almost impossible to get them in the early adopter stage. They will only jump on the bandwagon once it's full, ie as part of the late majority.
>
> There is a gap where we are, but "People like that" are almost everyone.

Yes, this is why you must ignore almost everyone. It is a waste of time, because they will not take a risk with new tech.

> Those people actually are middle-of-the-curve adopter, if you see a true late adopter in the wild it takes 3 relatives programming in D so that they start to be interested.

Heh, perhaps.

> Who doesn't want to be out of the early adopter stage, and get into the "officially endorsed safe choice" cohort?

All of us, but you cannot skip steps, not how it works.

> D is remarkably ready as a safe choice for lots of software.
>
>
>> Given how well it did on HN/reddit/lobste.rs, I think Vlad's gamble probably paid off. We can't run the counterfactual of choosing a safer title to see if it would have done even better, let's just say it did well enough. ;)
>
> Alternative darker view: ever remarked how D articles often goes downvoted on HN? The title who says something bad about D is upvoted ; it's easy to see events as going our way. I, for one, didn't really read the article. Who has time for that?

Maybe you should read it, some of the proggitors even created a new reddit sub based on this post, coining the term ClickGold, for when a clickbait article ends up being much _more_ interesting than its leading title: ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9z36xg/comment/ea6afce

On Tuesday, 27 November 2018 at 14:19:12 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> As Laeeth always says, you're best off looking for people who're actually capable and empowered to make such risky decisions, rather than aiming for the majority too early, because they only jump on board once the bandwagon is stuffed and rolling downhill.

I get the (I read "D compilation is slow" + "I'm not interested") vibe from people that actually _are_ early adopters, very interested in programming, who adopted Scala and Nim despite obvious risks.

I disagree with your opinion but just lacks the time to defend my own in a lengthy forum post. Let me make a giant argument by authority: I sell B2C software for a living. Convincing people to try software despite their will is what I do for a living. "Build it and they will come" would be a fantasy to believe if we hadn't competitors who had people come way before they built it.

Complicated triple negation arguments (D compile fast! no wait, it compiles slowly! no wait, it compiles fast!) don't work. In a few months whenever someone bring out D, forum replies will say "but D compilation is not that fast".

On 11/26/18 11:53 AM, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> 
> How many times have you been in this conversation:
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> - What language are you using?
> - D.
> - I know next to nothing about D.
> - Oh, it's very good, I even built a business on it! <laundry list of arguments and features>.
> - Oh no thanks. I should try Rust, it's secure, fast, modern blah blah; facts don't matter to me. But in reality I won't even learn a new language, I'm happy with a language without multi-threading.
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> It happens to me ALL THE TIME.
> This pattern is so predictable it's becoming boring so now I just keep silent.
> 

That's no surprise. The modern tech world is absolutely flooded with imbeciles and fashion-driven people.

On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 16:00:36 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 November 2018 at 04:48:09 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 20:51:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, you're right. The title will leave the impression "D is slow at compiling". You have to carefully read the article to see otherwise, and few will do that.
>>
>> Sorry about that. I'll have to think of two titles next time, one for the D community and one for everyone else.
>>
>> If it's of any consolation, the top comments in both discussion threads point out that the title is inaccurate on purpose.
>
> Please don't get me wrong, it's an excellent article, a provocative title, and fantastic work going on. I didn't meant to hurt!
>
> In my opinion language adoption is a seduction/sales process very much like business-to-consumer is, the way I see it it's strikingly similar to marketing B2C apps, unless there will be no "impulse buy".

I think that there are different strategies - decent appeal to a broad market and having a very high appeal to a small market (but there has better be something good about your potential customer base ie 'D, if you find VBA too difficult' is probably not a good strategy!).  And you probably don't get to pick which situation you are in, and then one had better realise it and play the game you're in.  The particular kind of market will shape what works - in my business you approach a retail client base differently from regular institutional investors and then the worlds' largest pools of money involved something else again.

D isn't really marketed and it's definitely not sold.  That's an implicit strategy in itself.

Nassim Taleb raises the question of how do you choose between two surgeons, both recommended.  One looks the part and hangs his many certificates on his office wall.  The other looks scruffy with the appearance of a tradesman.  Who do you pick?  Taleb says pick the guy who doesn't look the part because if he got there without signalling he must have something going for him.

But in general you can appeal on merits mostly to an audience that is highly discerning and very capable.  If you haven't got any money to appeal to an audience that judges based on heuristics and social factors well then you can try to avoid accidentally putting people off, you can be creative with guerilla marketing but the key thing is to make the most of what you got.  If everyone else does things a certain way then if for some reason that's closed off to you for now then if you look closely, with active perception,you may well see opportunities that are neglected to approach the problem another way.

> Actually no less than 3 programmer friends came to (I'm the weirdo-using-D and people are _always_ in disbelief and invent all sorts of reasons not to try) saying they saw an article on D on HN, with "D compilation is slow", and on further examination they didn't read or at best the first paragraph. But they did remember the title. They may rationally think their opinion of D hasn't changed: aren't we highly capable people?

It doesn't matter what most people think.  It matters what people who are on the fence or using D already a bit think.  Or people who have a lot of problems to which D is in part a solution only they didn't know about or think of D yet.

The messenger matters too.  If someone you trust and rate highly tells you something based on their experience that counts for a lot more than all the blog posts in the world.  And working code and lived experience dominates the social talk about it.

I've talked about D with the CTO of Bloomberg, the outgoing COO of Barclays investment bank, the number two guy at a 30bn hedge fund, the COO of the largest hedge fund in the world (depending on how you count) and more.  That's not going to change anything tomorrow but in time those kinds of conversations matter much more than what people might say on Reddit. It's not either /or of course, but it's just not worth sweating your reviews.

Finally the reasons people buy things are not what you might reasonably think!  Ask Walter how he was able to compete successfully for so long as a one man band with Microsoft.  I don't think his edge was in the beginning something calculated.


> Reasonable people may think marketing and biases don't apply to them but they do, it works without your consent.

The thing is that we had a bubble in synthetic manufactured marketing.  And now increasingly people are tired of that and seek what's authentic, real and that doesn't pretend to be perfect.

That doesn't mean a bit of thought is a bad idea,just that it might matter less than you think that the D community isn't particularly interested in marketing.  Sometimes one can see that hidden in what superficially seems to be a weakness is a strength.

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 12:48:46 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>
> D isn't really marketed and it's definitely not sold.  That's an implicit strategy in itself.


What I see in my (absurdly competitive) market is that the people that truly do no-marketing tend to close shop, sometimes despite very competitive offerings.

It colors my perception of course, since it can be very tempting to appeal to a limited pool of discerning customers; but that would mean death.

Imho the ones that succeed doing "no marketing" are actively telling others they don't do marketing. It can be sometimes funny, when the "no marketing" products comes with walls of text and videos that very much sound like... storytelling. But

Like in the "no-makeup makeup", there is still makeup but not obvious. 2018's marketing trend is to subtly fake complete honesty.

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 12:48:46 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>
> Nassim Taleb raises the question of how do you choose between two surgeons, both recommended.  One looks the part and hangs his many certificates on his office wall.  The other looks scruffy with the appearance of a tradesman.  Who do you pick?  Taleb says pick the guy who doesn't look the part because if he got there without signalling he must have something going for him.


It's definately the kind of surgeon one should choose - programmers that are not necessarily well groomed etc.. - but is it the kind of surgeon people will actually recommend? I'm doubtful.

If X has the social signalling then people will recommend X even without trying, because it's socially safe.

If one doesn't have the signalling, I've found the hard way even supporters will hesitate a bit before making recommendations, because of the social standing _cost_ it may have.

But then, perhaps recommendations don't matter, because opinions don't matter much? I think they matter to be even heard on public places.

And I think early adopters need a nudge, the influent need to be bothered by less influents (influencers are not especially on the lookout for new options, as they are already influent). Above all I think the niche of early-adopters is smaller than the larger market for languages, and the early-adopters are going elsewhere.

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 12:48:46 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> I think that there are different strategies - decent appeal to a broad market and having a very high appeal to a small market (but there has better be something good about your potential customer base ie 'D, if you find VBA too difficult' is probably not a good strategy!).  And you probably don't get to pick which situation you are in, and then one had better realise it and play the game you're in.  The particular kind of market will shape what works - in my business you approach a retail client base differently from regular institutional investors and then the worlds' largest pools of money involved something else again.
>
> D isn't really marketed and it's definitely not sold.  That's an implicit strategy in itself.

But one doesn't decide to have no strategy (at least if they any common sense!), one simply has no strategy. Unfortunately I think D falls into the latter, certainly not more than "Build it and they will come", irrespective of it effectiveness.

>> Actually no less than 3 programmer friends came to (I'm the weirdo-using-D and people are _always_ in disbelief and invent all sorts of reasons not to try) saying they saw an article on D on HN, with "D compilation is slow", and on further examination they didn't read or at best the first paragraph. But they did remember the title. They may rationally think their opinion of D hasn't changed: aren't we highly capable people?

I hope so!

> It doesn't matter what most people think.  It matters what people who are on the fence or using D already a bit think.  Or people who have a lot of problems to which D is in part a solution only they didn't know about or think of D yet.

Then we should try to subtly (for some value of subtlety) make ourselves noticed.

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 13:05:34 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 12:48:46 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>>
>> D isn't really marketed and it's definitely not sold.  That's an implicit strategy in itself.
>
>
> What I see in my (absurdly competitive) market is that the people that truly do no-marketing tend to close shop, sometimes despite very competitive offerings.
>
> It colors my perception of course, since it can be very tempting to appeal to a limited pool of discerning customers; but that would mean death.

What is the ratio of expenditure of your best customer to an average customer?   Not much.  That's one main reason why your intuition developed by organising your emotions according to your business domain fits this domain less.

What is the ratio of expenditure of the biggest 'customer' of Python to the average 'customer'?  Measured by resources lent to the community directly or indirectly, or by the wage bill of programmers at that firm working in Python this ratio is enormous.

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 13:30:37 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 12:48:46 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>>
>> Nassim Taleb raises the question of how do you choose between two surgeons, both recommended.  One looks the part and hangs his many certificates on his office wall.  The other looks scruffy with the appearance of a tradesman.  Who do you pick?  Taleb says pick the guy who doesn't look the part because if he got there without signalling he must have something going for him.
>
>
> It's definately the kind of surgeon one should choose - programmers that are not necessarily well groomed etc.. - but is it the kind of surgeon people will actually recommend? I'm doubtful.
>
> If X has the social signalling then people will recommend X even without trying, because it's socially safe.
>
> If one doesn't have the signalling, I've found the hard way even supporters will hesitate a bit before making recommendations, because of the social standing _cost_ it may have.
>
> But then, perhaps recommendations don't matter, because opinions don't matter much? I think they matter to be even heard on public places.
>
> And I think early adopters need a nudge, the influent need to be bothered by less influents (influencers are not especially on the lookout for new options, as they are already influent). Above all I think the niche of early-adopters is smaller than the larger market for languages, and the early-adopters are going elsewhere.

The innovator's dilemma, which is really an insight that dates back to Toynbee, and before that Ibn Khaldun, is not so obvious.  I am not sure that you have understood it.  I suggest reading the book if you are interested, but otherwise I unfortunately don't have so much time at the moment to try to persuade you of what this phenomenon is like and there's limited value to talking about talking rather than having a discussion based on a shared understanding of what this is about.