[comp.lang.ruby snipped] Ray wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > > > > So actual maturity isn't important when using a technology: it's > > "perceived maturity" that counts, right? > > Well depends on "counts" in what sense. Counts as in the managers up > there perceive something as mature, despite proofs of the contrary, > certainly "counts", because then we'll end up having to work with a > probably immature technology (nothing about RoR here, I'm talking in > general).
Yes, I saw this with Java several years ago. However, as someone actually using the technology concerned, it's obviously vital to make the distinction between actual and perceived maturity. My impression is that we're seeing developers, not managers, failing to make that distinction. > Yet with more people using it, its actual maturity will > inevitably rise as well, maybe eventually to a level near that of its > perceived maturity. This sentiment somehow reminds me of various Oracle products. > "Counts" as in to us developers who are actually spending our lives > doing this? Perhaps yes too. If you're well-versed in something that is > widely perceived to be mature, you may find it easier to win bread for > your family, even if you have a painful time using it. Sure. Just get certified on whatever today's middle management are advocating, spend a few years working with that stuff, then repeat the process for the next generation of middle management - it can certainly make money for people who don't seek any meaning in what they do. [...] > > If you only listen to Bruce Tate et al, I imagine you could have the > > above impression, but I'd be interested to see hard facts to back up > > those assertions. > > Yeah, see, the thing is that Python is not lacking luminaries endorsing > it either, e.g.: Eric Raymond and Bruce Eckel. But for some reason this > "Python is good" meme is not that viral. I wonder why... Python has had its share of the spotlight: Eric Raymond's advocacy dates back to the late 1990s; Bruce Eckel still advocates Python but started doing so a few years ago. Perhaps the latest arrivals to the party (celebrating dynamic languages in this case) are usually the loudest, in order to make up for their sluggish realisation that Java isn't the panacea they insisted it was while it was still the cool new thing. Or perhaps a lot of these people do quite nicely out of surfing whatever trend currently is the cool new thing. > And, since when do hard facts matter anyway? When certain individuals claim that more Java people know about Ruby than they do about Python. I know that there are people out there who know (about) Java but not about Jython, for example, but even in circles where buzz and hype seem like everything (eg. marketing) the hard facts or statistics are still critical because they actually help those people do their job properly. Moreover, just stating something doesn't make it true - the hard facts serve to prove or disprove such assertions, and to anyone serious about understanding the underlying phenomena, it's vital to seek those facts out. > I've met a number of > people who've told me they'd program in Eiffel if they could. And hey, > perhaps in its day Eiffel *was* the best OO language out there. > Certainly it looked cleaner than C++! :) So why don't they? Management pressure? Why don't people write more Python in their day job? Any suggestions? Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
