On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Chris Devers wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Chris Carline wrote: > > > > In anything less than the largest software houses, a standard language > > will be chosen and used because it will reduce the maintenance costs. > > I'm not sure if this is universally true or not.
It's not of course ! What I should probably have said is that in most corporates, where they're doing development, they will only have a small team. They will tend to standardise on one language as it cheaper to recruit for and presents a standard code base. In very large dev teams and bespoke software houses, then there is a good possibility of dedicated teams such as those you mention. On the flip side, as a buyer of software systems a corporate has to weigh up home much it will cost them to maintain their software assets. I suspect that many will opt to standardise. From my own experience I know that I have been asked to build websites using NT/asp/M$SQL because "that's what we've got the skills to support" even though it was far more costly for them in development and purchase of additional software. Then again, I've also been asked specifically to use perl because of exactly the same reason and that's my point. Unless we can get perl to be the language of choice then people are more likely to standardise on something else. > > Java is winning because management believe it is cheaper. Of course they > > are wrong but how do you convince them of it? Where are the case studies? > > http://perl.oreilly.com/news/success_stories.html > > ? Oh yes. Not updated since August last year. Hardly a ringing endorsement unfortunately. Although the case studies are quite good. Simon. -- "I demand to have some booze"
