From: Glenn Parker Date: 2005-03-24T09:24:09+09:00 Subject: Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers Cameron Laird wrote: > *DevSource* profiles "The State of the Scripting Universe" in > . It was NOT the most interesting or useful interview I've ever read. Maybe it was the format: four simulatneous interviews handling totally softball questions. Or maybe it was the repetition that resulted from the lack of interaction between the participants. Or maybe it was the inevitable boosterism from the interviewees. If you're looking for believable and meaningful criticism (what would you change, etc.), you'll have to go to people that are not completely vested in the world of dynamic languages. My favorite bit was Guido's comment: "If the same effort were poured into speeding up Python as Sun devoted to Java, Python would be better than Java in every respect." Guido has some serious cajones, even if he is right, which he probably is in this case. The same assertion could be made about Ruby, but in any case the assumption is that the really smart folks don't work on free software. Do you really buy that? The rest of the interview was mostly whining about how people just don't understand how really great dynamic languages are. We get the setup for this in the first sentence: "Scripting languages have long been regarded by the programming world as poor country cousins, somehow inferior to the 'real' programming languages." I must say, this premise is pure 100% baloney. The programming world already knows all about scripting languages and they tend to use them where they make sense. The claim that corporate PR trumps better language design is equally suspsect. Perl does not suffer even though it doesn't have Sun's PR department behind it. New dynamic languages are simply enduring the inevitable growing pains. If they solve problems in a radically better way, they will find a home. Just my curmudgeonly opionion. -- Glenn Parker | glenn.parker-AT-comcast.net |