I think we're still getting ahead of ourselves here. YES, we are all Perl programmers and love Perl. That doesn't mean we have to see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING else. It'd be nice. But who are we kidding. We're all different. I bring this up to help wash over some of these extraneous issues:
> Another "worst case for certification" is that the community bifurcates > from those who are rabidly anti-certification, and they take their > efforts and talents elsewhere. And their patches. And stop maintaining > their modules. A good programmer is a good programmer. A good person is a good person. If someone is going to stop programming in Perl simply because it becomes popular (and therfore flooded with lesser programmers), then that person is REALLY immature and (I hate to say it) an idiot. There are good reasons to do a lot of things. But stopping from doing something good that you love simply because other people are doing it too just sounds a little too a-la-13-year-old for me to really put much care into. Good riddens I say. > - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a mass of > programmers ready to use Perl, if only there were a > certification they could get We're talking need based. If a certification program were created, then managers would want more Perl programmers, then the need for new Perl programmers would increase, and people would respond. That IS demonstrated. It's economics 101. This is incredibly well documented. > - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a pool of > employers that do not use Perl simply because there are no > certified applicants We've listed several instances where the manager/boss simply doesn't know enough to know that Perl is a good thing. This whole discussion is in an attempt to find ways to make managers see that Perl is real and respectable. we believe that certification would HELP in this manner. > - Many Perl trainers are vehemently anti-certification. A > certification without a supporting training curriculum is dead in > the water. Again, if people want to be stupid, they can be. If you're a talented Perl programmer who can train other people, then you're in good standing to make more money and teach MORE people how to program Perl better than if they learned elsewhere or on their own. If you want to flee because it gets popular... again you're immature and an idiot. Sorry. Plus there are, as you said plenty of other Perl Gurus (some on this list) who are definitely capable, and probably willing. Again we're trying to better the Perl communittee. If trainers are going to run away now, then they don't have the Perl comunittee in their list of interests. > - Lots of programmers have a whole litany of excuses as to why they > avoid using Perl. Ugly code is one. Excessive use of punctuation > is another. Impenetrable regular expressions a third. "Odd" OOP > practices a fourth. And so on. Lack of certification options is > almost never a reason for programmers to not use Perl. Again, you're talking about programmers here. Better programming practices can be solved in a number of different ways and times. Right now, we're trying to convince the bosses. The bosses are not going to know or understand any of the above. Perl is NOT the solution to all problems. But it IS the solution to far more problems than managers are aware. > - Another reason why Perl is a minority language is that it's not > used in academic curricula. Certification will not solve that > problem, either. We'll still have a glut of VB, Java and C# > programmers after a certification is done. Actually WPI, and other education institutions are starting to ban the use of PHP and other languages due to bugginess and insecurities. WPI does most of its programming in Perl; by the end of the summer we shoudl be entirely PHP-free. And proud of it! > - One reason why many shops avoid Perl is the lack of vendor > support. Certification does nothing to address this. Verndors avoid Perl, because you don't NEED anything to program perl. So they can't make any money off it. This is actually a selling point ot managers. Perl is WAY cheaper than most other languages that you can compare it to. You don't need any expensive software or hardware to use it. > - Even with a certification program, the underlying problems with > Perl still need to be addressed: mod_perl is too hard to manage in > many situations, applications like RT take entirely too much work > to install, and so on. [1] Again, back on the programming side of things. Certificaiton might actually help with this. It might open up more opportunities for further education and training in Perl. Once Java certification came about a lot of people wanted to learn more. So more training facilities openned up to do just that. > You can try to solve that problem with certification. I wish you loads > of luck, though. The last time Perl had an upsurge in popularity, it > was because Perl solved a new class of problem better than anything > else. Might I suggest that the best way to increase adoption is to > learn from our past successes instead of admiring the green fields in > Redmond or Santa Clara? I agree with you here. Someone already suggested that we try and coinside this idea with the release of Perl6. Perl6 is supposed to do so much more and be so much more. This IS our opportunity. I appologize for any duplication here. I'm having difficulties making my way through all my email (been away over the weekend). --Alex > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:57:47AM -0500, Greg London wrote: >> Adam Turoff said: >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Greg London wrote: >> >> From a game-theory point of view, I think certification is an overall >> win. >> >> The worst case scenario for certification would be that gurus have to >> >> get their manager to pay for them to take the test. >> >> >> >> The worst case scenario for no certification would be that perl gets >> >> replaced with some other language that has more programmers. >> > >> > That is a gross oversimplification. There are oodles of ways >> > certification is a net loss; I won't rehash them; they've been >> > mentioned ad nauseum here and elsewhere. >> >> The point of "worst case" is to boil it down to one condition. >> It isn't oversimplification or bifurcation of an issue, >> its worst case result of something. > > Stating that the _one_ "worst case for certification" is for Perl > programmers get their managers to pay fees is missing the point. You do > not entertain the possibility that certification could possibly be bad > and do damage to the community, for example. > > Another "worst case for certification" is that the community bifurcates > from those who are rabidly anti-certification, and they take their > efforts and talents elsewhere. And their patches. And stop maintaining > their modules. > > Another "worst case for certification" is the gradual dumbing down of > the caliber of Perl programmers that Joe Average Manager can hire. I > could go on. > >> The oodles of ways that have been mentioned here all revolve >> around an idiot with a certificate, and that isn't any worse >> than the current situation. If there are other, more significant >> problems with certification, then mention them, and it should >> be the end of teh conversation. But just talking about ghosts >> without any evidence doesn't really forward anything. > > I'm talking about ghosts because I'm tired of reopening Pandora's box, > thankyouverymuch. :-) But since you've asked for it, here are some of > the more popular ones: > > - Certification doesn't _prove_ anything. It's mostly a means to > weed out resumes when you have 1000 applicants for one job. > - The point behind certification efforts is generally to "grow the > pool of Perl programmers". The logic is that a rising tide lifts > all ships: more jobs for entry level programmers, more jobs for > gurus, and so on. However: > - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a mass of > programmers ready to use Perl, if only there were a > certification they could get > - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a pool of > employers that do not use Perl simply because there are no > certified applicants > - there is no demonstrable evidence that simply offering > "certification" will answer the questions hiring managers will > ask > - Many Perl trainers are vehemently anti-certification. A > certification without a supporting training curriculum is dead in > the water. > - Sure, they could turn around, and sure, other trainers are just > as vehemently pro-certification. But this difference of opinion > should be resolved before any certification effort moves > forward, and it's been a complete logjam for years. > - Lots of programmers have a whole litany of excuses as to why they > avoid using Perl. Ugly code is one. Excessive use of punctuation > is another. Impenetrable regular expressions a third. "Odd" OOP > practices a fourth. And so on. Lack of certification options is > almost never a reason for programmers to not use Perl. > - Another reason why Perl is a minority language is that it's not > used in academic curricula. Certification will not solve that > problem, either. We'll still have a glut of VB, Java and C# > programmers after a certification is done. > - One reason why many shops avoid Perl is the lack of vendor > support. Certification does nothing to address this. > - Even with a certification program, the underlying problems with > Perl still need to be addressed: mod_perl is too hard to manage in > many situations, applications like RT take entirely too much work > to install, and so on. [1] > >> > At the end of the day, all that matters is "can you get the job done?" >> >> Maybe that was the problem you are trying to solve. > > Yep. Perl is a programming language. I use it to automate my daily > tedium, and solve problems for my clients and employers. > >> The problem I was trying to solve was how do you >> get wider acceptance of perl? > > You can try to solve that problem with certification. I wish you loads > of luck, though. The last time Perl had an upsurge in popularity, it > was because Perl solved a new class of problem better than anything > else. Might I suggest that the best way to increase adoption is to > learn from our past successes instead of admiring the green fields in > Redmond or Santa Clara? > > Z. > > [1]: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/6572 > > > _______________________________________________ > Boston-pm mailing list > Boston-pm@mail.pm.org > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm > _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
