Well they are extreme examples, but lets see if I can illustrate my point with them anyway.
If one had Damian AND Linus working together, my position is that their disparate skills would result in a better development than a team of just clones of one of them. I am certain there is much they both could learn from one another. You state that it isn't clear that one language wouldn't be better or worse than several. My experience tells me that it is clear. Furthermore, my experience tells me that products developed/built with tools that do their particular job very well are better than ones where a single tool tries to be made to do "too much". Just look at a typical (*nix) developers day - shell, Make, ant, java, perl, grep, CVS, SQL, XML - many specific tools/solutions/applications that result in a powerful synergy.
It was one of the arguments of not keeping Perl.
I still stand by my assertion this is a weak argument - to me it is patently obvious that Perl is infinitely better at many things than Java, so why one would be so bloody-minded as to force everyone to do those things in a much more difficult way, and justify it by saying having one language is a better use of resource, seems completely bizarre. Why anyone would think that taking 10 hours to write something in Java, that could be done in 3 in Perl, is a good use of resources is beyond me.
+++++++++++++++++
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;use strict;use brain;
In reply to Re: Re: Is Java really better than Perl???
by leriksen
in thread Is Java really better than Perl???
by Roger
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |