Ray wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > >>>But at least in most developers' perception, it is (not necessarily in >>>the absolute sense, but perhaps relative to Django or Turbogears). >>>Mind, it doesn't even need to be true, we're talking of perception >>>here. >> >>So actual maturity isn't important when using a technology: it's >>"perceived maturity" that counts, right? > > > Well depends on "counts" in what sense. Counts as in the managers up > there perceive something as mature, despite proofs of the contrary, > certainly "counts", because then we'll end up having to work with a > probably immature technology (nothing about RoR here, I'm talking in > general). Yet with more people using it, its actual maturity will > inevitably rise as well, maybe eventually to a level near that of its > perceived maturity. > > "Counts" as in to us developers who are actually spending our lives > doing this? Perhaps yes too. If you're well-versed in something that is > widely perceived to be mature, you may find it easier to win bread for > your family, even if you have a painful time using it. > > >>Any continuation down that >>particular path of reasoning surely leads you to the point where you >>claim, in concert with the developers, that increasing levels of >>inconvenience caused by gratuitous changes or broken documentation is >>not caused by bugs or general immaturity but by "features". I guess >>this is the definition of "opinionated software" that some people are >>so excited about. >> >>[...] >> >> >>>Sadly, there are more Java guys who know about Ruby than Python, >>>despite the fact that Python predates Ruby by quite a few years... >>>(this must be that Bruce Tate dude's fault! ) >> >>If you only listen to Bruce Tate et al, I imagine you could have the >>above impression, but I'd be interested to see hard facts to back up >>those assertions. > > > Yeah, see, the thing is that Python is not lacking luminaries endorsing > it either, e.g.: Eric Raymond and Bruce Eckel. But for some reason this > "Python is good" meme is not that viral. I wonder why... > > And, since when do hard facts matter anyway? I've met a number of > people who've told me they'd program in Eiffel if they could. And hey, > perhaps in its day Eiffel *was* the best OO language out there. > Certainly it looked cleaner than C++! :) > Also remember that there are still lots of Python users who keep the fact quiet because they regard it as a strategic advantage. They don't *want* Python usage to spread, or they'll lose their advantage.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
