Re: The Design of Design

"Stephen Fuld" <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:

Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

"Stephen Fuld" <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:
>

Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

"Stephen Fuld" <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:

[a bunch of stuff we agree on]

The problem that was in need of addressing is interactive use.  I
think there are two reasons why JCL was so poor at that.  One is
that they knew that teleprocessing would be important, but they
tried to cram it into the batch processing model, rather than
understanding a more interactive work style.  The second reason is
that the culture at IBM, at least at that time, never understood

>
the >> idea that using computers can be (and should be) easy and fun.
The >> B in IBM is Business, and Business isn't supposed to be fun.
And I >> think that's part of why JCL was not viewed (at IBM) as a
failure, >> because their Business customers didn't mind.  Needless
to say, I am >> speculating, but for what it's worth those are my
speculations.

>
I don't think we have a major disagreement that IBM didn't address the
interactive user.  We may have a slight disagreement as to the reason
for that.  I believe you think that they considered it, but rejected it
because it was too much like fun.  I don't attribute that motivation,
and don't know what the resons for the rejection were, but we both
agree that they underestimated its importance for non-fun uses.

Let me expand on my previous statement.

I think the "fun" aspect was part of the motivation, but a mostly
unconscious one.

Another (and perhaps larger?) part of the motivation was about the
relative priorities, and this was (I believe) a conscious element.
In particular, interactive use was thought to be important for
program development (Brooks says something along these lines in
TDOD).  I conjecture that IBM consciously decided -- whether
rightly or wrongly -- that program development was only a small
fraction of what IBM's market wanted to do with their computers,
and so IBM didn't prioritize it;  they thought that what little
program development was needed could be carried out adequately
under the batch processing model.  That's understandable - it's
hard for people who have a lot of experience in an old technology
to appreciate the benefits of a new technology (countless examples
over the last 50 or 60 years).  A quote from Tom Watson Sr comes
to mind (paraphrased):  "I think there's a world market for about
five computers."  It isn't just coincidence that innovation tends
to come from the young.  DEC, to give one example, was a much
younger company, and fully embraced the interactive model early
on.  Even 20 years later, I think IBM made a wise decision to
farm out the development of an operating system for the PC,
because it just wasn't in IBM's culture to know what those
customers wanted.