"...the technology that gets the job done is just fine... "
That statement is of minimal use due to its overly vague and simplistic nature. The technology that "gets the job done" isn't fine if your competitors get it done in half the time, or it's easier to add features, or it's supported on more platforms, and so on (shall I add the extra 200 pages needed to summarize the major points?).
Some of us need the absolute best and place a great amount of effort into analyzing the "technology" that "gets the job done." These things can all be objectively analyzed, it just takes a very large amount of effort, time, and expertise. The scope of what languages are considered isn't anywhere near complete either, but can be filtered fairly efficiently. Due to the rapid evolution of most programming languages results don't stay current for very long either.
This is why you won't see many good comparisons posted online - they take a lot of effort, a wide area of expertise, become out of date quickly, and there's very, very little positive feedback for these things (read: you'll piss a lot of people off). So why would people bother publicizing such things?
In reply to Re: Is Perl the best programming language - a better way for discussion
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Is Perl the best programming language - a better way for discussion
by pg
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |