Alexandr Ciornii wrote:
PHP, C#, Java are much more prefered, because the programs created with them
can hide the source code much better, while this is not possible with Perl.
This is a big reason why the software companies that create custom programs
for their clients prefer to use those languages and not perl. Not because
perl is bad.
I would like to add that it seems ridiculously simple to decompile Java
classes.
I find this a bad argument. My company - admittedly small - sells
services and software to customers. 90% of our software is written in
Perl, and we supply it in source format.
None of our customers in their right mind would even think of stealing
the code, although it is extremely well-commented throughout. If they
had the time to do that, then they would not have asked us to supply the
service in the first place.
Ultimately, and back to the OP's orginal question, these are the two or
three main arguments in this debate, mainly already provided by other
contributors :
1) if you have a customer and you provide a good service to this
customer, and you have provided it for years, and you provide it at a
fair price, then why should they listen to a fresh-landed consultant
instead of listening to you ?
If they listen to the consultant and ignore your advice, then the
problem is not in the programming language you use.
2) it is easy for anyone to use words like "obsolete", but what to these
words really mean ? is something that hasn't much changed in 10 years
automatically "obsolete" ? if yes, then the WWW is obsolete, and the
decision-maker at your customer company is also obsolete.
Something becomes really obsolete the day when something else is
available, and it performs the same function better and at a lower cost.
Is that the case here ?
3) it is true that perl has somehow become less "in vogue", consistently
over the last few years. The (apparently aging) perl community is
largely aware of the fact and deplores it. The critics to perl always
seem to rehash the same things (the funny variable prefixes, the
possibility of writing bad code, the "write-only" aspect - you can never
re-read the code, and so on). Mostly these critics are people who do not
really know the language. But it is not because there are comparatively
fewer perl programmers available that perl is an inferior language.
There are thousands of so-called MS-Windows or PHP experts available,
yet you have to hire ten and then fire nine, to keep the one who is
really competent. That's always more expensive than getting the right
person from the start.
Anyway, I am not so sure that there are really less perl programmers,
and less perl-based projects or sites. It may just be that whatever
those people do, they do it quietly, competently and without fuss; and
that the projects or sites which are based on perl are less in the news
because they don't crash and don't overrun their budgets.
It seems a bit like turning things on their head. I mean if there are a
lot of job adverts for PHP or Java developers, it must mean that PHP or
Java projects need a lot of manpower, no ? So conversely..
