Re: Is Java really better than Perl???

[Abigail-II]

To consolidate the total number of languages in use by the Competency, leading to more efficient use of staff

This is highly dubious, the tough part of coding is getting the algorithms right, the language is just the way to tell the computer what to do.

While this is true, it's not an argument. If your company is programming in two languages, they need to hire skills for two languages - they have two options. Either hire two groups of people, one group is skilled in one language, the other is skilled in the other language. The drawback is that one group can't do the work of the other - unless you do some investment to train them. The other option is to hire people skilled in both languages. But those tend to be harder to find, and more expensive (and rightly so, because they are more able).

Note that I'm not saying that it's always good to focus on one language (or OS, or platform, or colour of shoes, or whatever). I'm just saying that there are arguments (many of them having to do with costs in some way) for homogeneity - but there are arguments for heterogeneity as well (flexibility, spreading for risks). It's not a black and white decision.

There's nothing you can do in Java that can't be done in perl.

I don't think that's the argument. The argument is that there's nothing you can do in Perl that you can't do in Java - so there's no reason to keep Perl.

There is also an important distiction between execution speed and develepment speed. Also consider development time to lifetime ratio - very important.

Important, but not overly. In many cases, execution speed is far more important than development speed. If you have a website that makes it money from sales, and investing 2 programmer years to shave off 5 seconds of the transaction time leads to 10% less customers to leave before concluding the deal, it may be well worth the investment.

Abigail

[EvdB]

I take your point on consolidating staff - although there is room to argue over a beer about whether a good coder is good because of general skills or specific language skills.

With There's nothing you can do in Java that can't be done in perl I wanted to make the point that it cuts both ways and so can't be used as an argument per se.

Again I accept your speed arguments, and without particulars of the situation it is difficult to get specific. I could argue that 2 programmer years is more expensive that faster hardware, but that is mud slinging and also applies equally to Java.

[Abigail-II]

I could argue that 2 programmer years is more expensive that faster hardware

Well, that depends. If the program is just going to run on one particular machine (or cluster of machines), than that might be true. But that isn't always the case. I'm currently working on a project that runs on relatively cheap hardware: one CPU (Pentium or compatible), small disk (25 Mb will do), floppy drive, one network card, and one or more Equinox cards. Sounds cheap, but upgrading is expensive. We have about 1200 of them, scattered around more than 100 hospitals. They need to be assembled, installed in the field, and rigorously tested - by the third party that assembles the boxes, and by the customers. And then you have to convince the customers they should upgrade (and stay with us and not switch to a competitor).

The cost of hardware is more than the price of the pieces of metal and plastic. ;-)

Abigail