Choosing a programming language as a competitive tool

[Alex Martelli]

"Steve Holden" <sholden at holdenweb.com> wrote in message
news:tbWH6.63675$qc2.16320477 at typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
    [snip]
> The main problem underlying the lack of good programmers is most
> organizations' unwillingness to invest in training their staff. They would

Incidentally, there ARE good economic reasons for that, unless one
can count on some extra-economic mechanism to retain programmers
in whose training you have invested heavily (gratitude...?).  Say you
and I both have a budget of X $$$ per programmer.  If you choose
to spend K $$$ per programmer in training them, then the salary you
can offer is only X-K.  I, on the contrary, can offer the full X as salary,
and thereby (unless gratitude or some other extra-economic force is
at work) systematically steal from you all well-trained programmers
who act as maximizers of economic returns.

> rather poach from others than homegrow their programming talent, and never
> bother to think what kind of mindset this engenders in programmers. And
yet,
> dammit, programming work is so much more fun when you have others around
you
> who will help you to learn and grow. In such an environment *everybody*
> learns to be more productive.

True, and part of the non-economic aspects that MAY influence some
programmers to stay with their current employers (hey, I may know
all about the theory of economic agents, but I've been with my current
employer for the last 12+ years... there are some things no money can
buy, and the "feel" of working here is definitely among those!).  Still,
it's quite a gamble, if the training you give your employees makes them
more valuable to OTHER employers, that your employees' gratitude, or
whatever, will convince them to give up serious potential opportunities
of enhancing their income, isn't it?


> There's a kind of Peter principle in operation, dictating that if you're
> good enough at programming you will eventually end up in charge of a bunch
> of monkeys, with nobody who can train you.

It _IS_ possible to beat this scheme -- if your employer is clever enough,
at least; said employer will eventually realize that if your productivity as
a programmer is 10 times average, and your productivity as a manager
is about average, it's crazy to move you to management.  Clever enough
employers establish parallel career tracks, one for managers and one for
high-level technicians -- just as star-performing salespeople would never
be pushed by a clever-enough employer to stop selling in order to manage
other salespeople, and for similar reasons... it's NOT true that being great
at selling ensures you're great at motivating, organizing, directing OTHER
salespeople.  Of course, rewards on the parallel career tracks DO need to
be parallel, or clever technicians/salespeople/etc will smell the trick:-).


> Disclaimer: I make a living from training, so may be biased.

It's a good thing to "declare one's interests", but I suspect your job puts
you in a position to better observe the "average" organizations.  I have
nowhere as much of a vantage point as you do, being in an organization
that's definitely far from average (and sometimes enjoys calling itself
an "upstart"... we can't be a "start-up" because we've been around for
almost 20 years, albeit under two different names:-).


Alex