Defending the Python lanuage...

[Peter Milliken]

"Cliff Wells" <logiplexsoftware at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1012498757.26825.python-list at python.org...
> On 31 Jan 2002 00:05:47 -0800
> Rony wrote:
>
> > "Hernan M. Foffani" <hfoffani at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<20020130073810.382$1b at news.newsreader.com>...
> > ....
> > > I fully agree that when a manager evaluates techs alternatives the
> > > decision may be affected by non-tech factors. I don't think many
> > > readers here would deny such claim and c.l.py is a great forum to
> > > look for answers on TECH's issues of Python.
> >
> > Wait just a moment here ... what are you saying here? c.l.py is a
> > great place to tooks for tech's issues But we don't consider managment
> > issues ...
> > Well in the ***real*** world where i live all descission are taken by
> > managers !
>
> Which is why, of course, Unix had to be secretly developed in a back room
> without funding ;)
>
> Seriously though, I do think that management-related questions are
> appropriate (as they relate to Python) and if you think about it, those
> questions aren't just management questions.  Any developer should ask
> himself these questions when considering new tools.  Actually, I have seen
> these same questions asked before albeit in a somewhat different way.
>
> I will say that it is refreshing to see a manager active on a technical
> forum.  As you are probably well aware (and the last couple of posts on
> this thread should make it obvious) there is a rift between management and
> developers - developers tend to think that management is clueless and
> management tends to think that developers just want to play with new toys.
> While there is a grain of truth there (managers tend to be less aware of
> the technical details and developers do like to try new stuff), neither
> view is true enough to ever take seriously (although when you find
yourself
> in the situations where it is true it can jade you for life :P )
>

G'Day Cliff,

I guess that is me then (jaded for life, I mean :-)). I have seen managers
advocating the use of a language purely based upon the fact that they
believed they could hire programmers with the appropriate experience more
easily and programmers advocating the use of a language because it would
look good on their resume. So much of what you say here Cliff, I don't
believe or agree with :-) I am too "jaded" :-). For instance, I have never,
ever seen a language choice based upon technical merit and with a decent
study into what is or isn't available - something that managers would like
to see and something that programmers should do! In over 20 years of
programming I have only ever seen the choice made for one (or more) of the
above decisions i.e. "I can get more programmers for language X than
language Y" or "language X on my resume makes me more employable" - BTW,
both arguments are perfectly valid but hardly take into account the "big
picture".

I have even seen managers rejecting a language because they tried it
themselves one afternoon and couldn't get something to compile! The language
was a strongly type checked language i.e. you had to actually sit down and
think and plan before you attempted to dash out some code - that is why he
failed because he wasn't used to thinking about his code before hand :-).

How many programmers or managers can at least point to a paper comparing
various languages? Not too many, I'll bet! :-) Yet we should *all* be able
to do it just as a professional piece of knowledge. How many "papers" do you
have in your desk drawers that contain information about benefits/drawbacks
of different languages? (I am using "you" and "your" in the generic sense
here, no personal attack or comment implied :-)). I don't know any
programmers that I have worked with over the last 20+ years who have any
such information ferreted away for when they need it (of course there must
be some, otherwise we wouldn't be having discussions like this and there
wouldn't be newsgroups like comp.software-eng :-)).

> However, your last statement that managers make _all_ the decisions was an
> unfortunate one.  It's better if the technicians make the decisions and
> then managers _approve_ them.  This may be splitting hairs, but when it
> comes to deciding on things like what language to develop in, who is going
> to be better informed: the people /using/ that language or someone who is
> more focused on the overall picture?  Tool choices are a detail and best
> left to those using the tools.  Managers should focus on personnel
> coordination, feature specifications, overall design, etc - the big
> picture.  It's when they start trying to specify which
> editor/debugger/compiler will be used that friction occurs.  Granted, if
> you have a team and one person wants to do things differently than
everyone
> else, management needs to step in, but if there is a general consensus
> amongst your developers, then you need to listen, or be prepared to look
> for new developers when your existing ones start looking elsewhere for
> employment.  If you won't use the technology they prefer, they'll find
> someone who will.

Agreed (somewhat :-)), a managers job is to "smooth the way", however, they
do have a vested interest in productivity - I think we would all agree to
that one? :-)

Interesting point here about tools - in my experience ( :-)) programmers
rarely look for the most productive tools, they seem to be very narrow
minded when it comes to tools at the personal level i.e. editors are your
prime example - I have seen many cases of a more efficient (and more
productive) editor being bypassed by programmers because they happend to use
editor X. I have even walked behind people retyping the same line over and
over again (with appropriate minor variations) and totally ignoring the
cut/paste option of the editor! :-) At the time I believe it was a simple
reflection of boredom, but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make
him drink! :-) Witness the debate about code reviews - you can dig up piles
of literature and statistics that show code reviews are good for
productlivity but it is a rare programming shop that pays anything but lip
service to it (if they pretend to do them at all!) For those who want to
dispute this one, when was the last time you spent an hour reviewing every
150 lines of code? :-)

For example, who uses an editor with language sensitive features i.e. it
generates code templates for you? Everyone acknowledges that many initial
passes through a compiler (or interpretor) are aborted due to a missing ':'
or ';' - the statistics are there, so why don't we all use an editor that
generates this stuff for us? Not many people (in my experience :-)) use such
a tool, but the productivity benefits are obvious.

So, I'll remain at one of my earlier statements to this newsgroup :-), the
software industry is not a profession, it is a cottage industry and looks to
remain that way for some considerable time :-).

Regards
Peter

>
> Speaking-from-personal-experience-ly yours,
>
> --
> Cliff Wells
> Software Engineer
> Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
> (503) 978-6726 x308
> (800) 735-0555 x308
>
> "Then with your new power you'll accomplish all sorts of cool stuff
>  in no time, and We'll All Be Sorry.  At that point you can either
>  gloat a bit, and then relent, or go ahead and send the robot army
>  after us." - Quinn Dunkan
>