Compare Java’s library to Smalltalk’s — you’ll find a much greater difficulty keeping Smalltalk’s API in your head than Java’s.

Java has JavaDocs, which can be conveniently printed. Smalltalk has, at most, comments in the code browser. Most would think this is the “same thing,” but it’s not really. I’ve been coding for years myself, and I still prefer a deadtree book over online help when looking things up.

If you want something to reach the masses and be accepted, you must target user’s experiences first and foremost, and technical abilities on a secondary basis. A programming language must be a service as much as it is a product, which means you need excellent support resources too, even if the service is an unpaid-for perk.

Maybe now that more folks are acquiring multi-head displays as monitor prices and power consumption comes down, this will start to change.

Of course, its support for “component marketplace” software markets had a lot to do with it too, but I think the fact that it was just plain easier to look things up for Java than it was for Smalltalk had a greater effect.

QWERTY was adopted because it was used by Remington. Remington not only sold typewriters, they also sold intruction manuals, taught typing classes, and held typing contests. None of the other manufacturers did as much to promote typewriting, thus the Remington method became the standard.

On second thoughts though, the Panda’s principle is a way of the nature. Technology is way mediocre when compared to nature and its laws. About Windows/OSX, I think the movie Pirates Of Silicon Valley gives some insight. Bill Gates should be considered as a factor. Well, maybe someone should study his evolution ;-)

In your argument that the cost of change from QWERTY to DVORAK will benefit over time, you are supposing that man is a rational creature… but fortunately or unfortunately, man is bound by emotional and sentimental feelings too to a particular technology (laziness too on a lighter note ;-))

On the cost of converting from windows to OS X, you should also take into account the maintenance charges. Apple doesnt have many distribution/service centers in third world countries. Microsoft on the other hand need not worry about the hardware aspect (since local assemblers should handle the x86 hardware problems). The lack or rather the minimal support received might snowball into a bad feeling against Apple and eventually OS X. Microsoft on the other hand can provide support through the net, phone or any other long distance methods. And then as every windows user would know windows has a simple solution to all problems format and reinstall :-)

First of all, I am not, by any mean, trying to spread ignorance about the inception of the QWERTY layout (or anything else for that matter). There are conflicting explanations. Depending on which source you trust you will have a different position. I leave people free to read the comments and make up their minds. I am not pretending to be “The” voice of truth.

Secondly, I would like to point out that, as mentioned in the article, the QWERTY versus Dvorak example is given by Stephen Jay Gould himself to illustrate his Panda Principle. It is hard to argue that he did not understand his own principle!

I believe, the cost of change can be an explanation for certain manifestations of the Panda Principle. I do not think that the two are exclusive. Thinking about the cost of change, it all depends on the window of time on which you measure the cost of change. Using the Dvorak example applied to one decent QWERTY typist, if you measure the cost of change after a couple of days, it will be impressively high: the typist lost his skills! If you measure it after a couple of months, the cost will probably be negative: the change turns out to be a benefit.

Regarding Windows and OS X, I agree with you, there is a cost associated with the switch from one system to another, but I doubt it is as high as people think. I will probably keep that for another post!

And thanks for the comment!

In any case, I believe the Panda Principle is being applied incorrectly, or at least being stretched to lengths that would make Gumby cringe. The principle, to my understanding (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!), basically states that once something shows up that does the job well enough and reaches an adoptive threshold, it removes or lessens the need to further optimize, thus stifling additional progress. There is no need to develop a better way to eat bamboo when you’re at the top of the survival heap. Improvements fail to propagate based simply on need, it has nothing to do with the potential cost of a shift

In the case of QWERTY vs DVORAK, it’s not simply a case of one being good enough – we’re intelligent creatures capable of actively making decisions to aid us, fully capable of making the switch to something more optimal should we so desire – it’s benefit vs cost. It would be quite a large undertaking to switch everyone and everything over to DVORAK, and the benefit gained is arguably much less than said cost. Add in the fact that anyone who really feels the need to use DVORAK can simply do so, and the need to make an overall switch is lessened significantly. Not many Panda’s can choose what kind of thumb they end up with.

Skipping Smalltalk vs Java as I don’t feel I know enough to comment.

OS X vs Windows you stated fairly accurately, but again you ignore cost. This one is tricky though, as it’s a catch 22 situation and I can see why one might gloss over it: other OS’s have trouble gaining ground because of the lack of software availability, which is caused by the size of the user base, which of course is maintained by software availability… and so on, ad infinitum. The cost is self propagating, but the cost is still there. If this were about the panda’s thumb again, then a switch from their nub (Win) to something better (OS X) would involve a period of decline in the efficiency of eating food (software), leading to a decline in fitness. Evolution doesn’t make a habit of backtracking like this, as a trait that leads to lower fitness, even if it may eventually lead to increased fitness, will simply die out. As such, it exceeds the scope of the Panda Principle once again, which to my understanding does not involve the cost of change.

While we’re on the OS X vs Win subject though, I just want to express my belief (or hope) that the switch to x86 architecture will encourage growth on the software side of things and will lead to significant ground gained in the fight against the BSoD.