Something like this happened to my project teams twice. (Though it was
first C++ and later Microsoft VB ASP as the competing project teams.)
The *much* larger development organizations delivered less
functionality (according to the companies own metrics), but their
managers were far more powerful because they had a larger span of
control.

On 8/12/07, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@[...].com>  wrote:
>  Shows a total ignorance of how management thinks.
> 
>  Java is about 1/10 to 1/5 as productive as Smalltalk.
> 
>   From the manger's perspective, he wants to climb the corporate
>  ladder.  To do this, he must become more important than he is.  He
>  could hire Steve the wizard Smalltalker to write his system and get
>  it done in a few months.  Steve can do it.  He's pricey but from a
>  productivity perspective, he's worth it.
> 
>  But when promotion time comes - manager guy can only say "I have one
>  employee - Steve" and he gets very little respect as a manager.  How
>  hard can it be to manage one guy?
> 
>  For the timeframe - he could hire 5 Java guys - make more code (that
>  does the same thing) and he gets to say to his peers that he manages
>  a team of 5 developers.  Each developer costs less than Steve - so it
>  looks like he is getting a bargain in two ways.  Which sounds better
>  to his boss who is judging him on his management skills?  He manages
>  Steve.  Or he manages a team of 5?  Which one will get him promoted?
> 
>  Extra bonus reason - Steve can get hit by a bus.  Big risk!  A Java
>  developer can also get hit by a bus - but if that happens it is much
>  less likely to impact the project critically.  So manager guy feels
>  better about that too.  Steve is hard to replace - Java people are a
>  dime a dozen and only have to be 1/5 as good.
> 
>  Smalltalk loses because it is TOO productive.  It frightens the
>  manager and doesn't make him look powerful and important.  It
>  marginalizes him instead.
> 
>  FWIW, I also worked as a dev manager at some large companies and
>  believe me - this is the thought process.
> 
> 
>  On Aug 12, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
> 
>  > Another one from blogosfere. For our rethinking ...
>  >
>  > http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/99
>  >
>  > A lack of productivity is killing Smalltalk.
>  >
>  > I heard today that the development of Dolphin Smalltalk has been
>  > discontinued. Although it isn't a product I used or was familiar
>  > with, I have been involved with a number of Smalltalk-based
>  > development efforts in the past. While it was somewhat popular in
>  > the late 1980s and early 1990s, the commercial usage of Smalltalk
>  > has declined significantly since then.
>  >
>  > Slava Pestov suggests how poor implementations are leading to the
>  > downfall of Smalltalk. I would tend to agree, to some extent. Most
>  > Smalltalk implementations really don't compare to a development
>  > platform like Java, or even what Microsoft has put together with C#
>  > and .NET.
>  >
>  > However, I would tend to think that the main reason why Smalltalk
>  > has started to really fall out of favor is that it doesn't bring
>  > the level of productivity that it used to, relative to other
>  > technologies. Back in the early 1990s, a lot of enterprise-grade
>  > software was written using C or C++. For developing complex
>  > business applications, Smalltalk often did offer a very significant
>  > productivity boost to developers, even if the runtime performance
>  > of the applications suffered somewhat. Being at a higher-level, it
>  > allowed business rules and concepts to be more easily and
>  > effectively represented in the software itself.
>  >
>  > But that started to change by the mid-1990s. Java arose, and
>  > offered many of the benefits that Smalltalk had been offering.
>  > That's not to say that Java, as a language, is comparable to
>  > Smalltalk. In many ways it's quite inferior, even over a decade
>  > after its initial release. But it was more familiar to those
>  > developers who'd come from the world of C and C++, while also
>  > offering OO functionality and garbage collection similar enough to
>  > that of Smalltalk.
>  >
>  > I've worked with several excellent Smalltalk developers in the
>  > past. A talented, experienced professional can do wonders with
>  > Smalltalk. Unfortunately for them, Java and its vast array of
>  > classes, class libraries and frameworks have brought a similar
>  > level of productivity to only average developers. So if these
>  > average developers can churn out an adequate software product at a
>  > lower cost than the Smalltalk expert, as has often become the case,
>  > then the business will flow towards the Java developers.
>  >
>  > Unless the Smalltalk developers bring something to the party that
>  > drastically increases their productivity (or their software's
>  > productivity) over that put out by Java developers, they won't have
>  > a real chance at survival.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Janko Mivšek
>  > AIDA/Web
>  > Smalltalk Web Application Server
>  > http://www.aidaweb.si
>  >
> 
> 
>