Re: Perl usage

"x" == xhoster <xhoster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

x> If the manager did give you reasons (not covered in the FAQs),
x> we could possibly formulate rebuttals to do them, if we knew
x> what those reasons were.

It's also worth reiterating here that you can't reason someone out of
a position that he or she didn't get to by reason in the first place.
In other words, no matter what reason he gives, if your manager
arrived at the decision not to use Perl based on gut feelings and
subjective impressions, you most likely won't be able to argue him out
of it with facts.

I've been in this situation a couple times. When you have more than 3
or 4 people in the organization, the options really boil down to
these: first, you can get a consensus among 2/3 of the people working
there that they would be better off in another language; second, you
can get a new VP who thinks the old way is bad and the Perl way is
clearly the way of the future, and who has enough credibility with his
fellow VPs to make that pronouncement stick; third, you can stick with
whatever the dominant programming language there is; fourth, you can
find a job somewhere that they use Perl.

Managers think, and by and large correctly, that they're better off
sticking with a language that their team is comfortable and productive
in, even if it has clear technical shortcomings, than switching to a
new and untested language, even if it has clear technical advantages.
Some of this is merely being conservative, but managers are also more
concerned with clear forecasting: you can get a more reliable
estimate of how long a project will take with a tool you know than
with a tool you don't know, and it's better from a business point of
view to have a reliable estimate than to have a chance of finishing it
in half the time but a comparable chance that it will take twice as
long.

Charlton



--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.