[Discuss] Econonomic contribution

[Daniel C.]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bill Bogstad <bogstad at pobox.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure why that sentiment wouldn't apply equally to Steve Jobs
> 'vision' and his contributions to computing.   Or anyone else for that
> matter.   Kind of makes this whole thread a waste of time.

Because of what Tom Metro said.  Jobs radically changed the direction
of interfaces.  Fire, the wheel, and simple machines would have been
discovered sooner or later.  Unix... well, maybe?  That's a tougher
discussion, but it seems to be the essence of what we're asking.  It
seems pretty safe to say that Jobs' contributions (as "fluffy" as they
were) might not have been duplicated by someone else - at least not
for several years.  Could the same be said for Ritchie?  For Jobs,
it's clear that the form of his advances were important.  (They were
basically all form, and little substance.  This is not necessarily a
criticism.)  For Ritchie, it's not as clear.  If you think that what
Ritchie did (Unix, C, etc.) was groundbreaking and could not easily
have been duplicated by someone else if he hadn't ever lived, then
it's probably fair to say that Ritchie's contributions were greater.
If you think that what Ritchie did was marginal, or that it could
easily have been duplicated by someone else, then you'd probably have
to go with Jobs.

-Dan