in reply to Defending Perl

I'm not really affected, but it sort of makes sense to me. Big enterprise, wants predictable recipes for things, not the wild hubris that Perl allows. They want employees trained in a system that allows for the employees to be disposable such that replacements can step right in and understand the objects. They want object models that won't change, or if they do, they will still be compatible with other programs used by companies.

It makes sense that companies want to create giant object models that reflect their company, which are compatible with other company's models ( makes buyouts and mergers easier) , and compatible with government tax software, etc. It's all geared toward lowering IT staff numbers, and increasing profits.

I suppose if Perl had a corporate sponsor, like Sun, it would have a chance, but Sun has listing on the NYSE and lobbyists in Washington. Whilst Perl has Perlmonks. :-)

Perl is extremely useful, and just because it is not Enterprise level, dosn't change that.

I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. Cogito ergo sum a bum

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Defending Perl
by jdporter (Paladin) on Nov 16, 2007 at 14:46 UTC
    Big enterprise, wants predictable recipes for things, not the wild hubris that Perl allows. They want employees trained in a system that allows for the employees to be disposable such that replacements can step right in and understand the objects.

    Quite right. Which reminds me of one more thing: they want languages which play nice with CASE tools — both for reverse engineering (deducing object models from source code) and for "forward engineering" (generating source code from models). Java is great for this; Perl, not so much. :-)

    ... object models that reflect their company, which are compatible with other company's models ( makes buyouts and mergers easier) ...

    Interesting hypothesis, but I think rather too optimistic. In my experience, companies tend quite the opposite way: every one wants to invent their own models; even when another company's models might be demonstrably better, the "not invented here" mentality almost always rules. I see this a lot, especially in the government sector.

    A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
[reply]
Re^2: Defending Perl
by technojosh (Priest) on Nov 16, 2007 at 13:35 UTC
    ++ to this, good insight into the seemingly developing problem in the OP's home country (Venezuela?)

    My current employer is a 'mostly' java shop. They are currently contracting workers overseas for this exact reason. You can bring in a young Java trainee, and they will plug right in. It's all dollars and cents. I was coerced into picking up Java over the last year, however my position still allows about 80% Perl programming so I'm a lucky one/exception to the rule here. I think, in this sort of case, it's up to the creative Perl user to find ways to convince the boss that Perl is still the sensible language to go with in a given scenario (although that's not always possible/easy)

    It would seem to me, that if IBM and Sun Microsystems have contracts with the OP's gov't, the situation there will be following these same sort of footsteps.

[reply]

      It's all dollars and cents. As the manager of a fifty-head enterprise Java team, you're definitely gonna get a much higher salary than as the lead of a five-men Perl shop. Even if (or rather even though) the produced applications are the same.

      What do you think is more appealing to a middle level manager? If you tell him/her that you can get it done with the people you have or if you tell him that you need twenty more certified Java developers and have all the fancy presentations ready to convince the upper management?

      Jenda
      Support Denmark!
      Defend the free world!

[reply]

In Section Meditations