Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Is Java really better than Perl???

by Abigail-II (Bishop)
on Apr 21, 2004 at 11:01 UTC ( [id://346961]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Is Java really better than Perl???
in thread Is Java really better than Perl???

If you have four developers who are handy with Perl, Java, C++ and SQL, surely they can achieve vastly more than four purely Java developers.
Not sure what you mean here. Four developers, one handy in Perl, another in Java, a third in C++, and the fourth with SQL? Or four developers handy in four languages? People good in multiple languages are harder to find, and cost more. It's not clear whether the company gets more bang for the buck that way. Furthermore, even if all your programmers can program in all languages, it's not clear at all it's good to actually write in different languages. And that's because of code reuse. You can't easily reuse your Perl module in your C++ program, or your Java class in your Perl program. That means, C++ libraries, Perl modules and Java classes will be developed providing the same functionality. You must have a pretty good argument to sell that to a manager (or to me - and I'm not a manager).

There's nothing you can do in Java you can't to in binary. That's not a good reason for doing everything in binary. Similiarly for choosing Java over Perl.
You don't understand the argument. It's not an argument to pick Java over Perl. It's an argument to not keep Perl.
As for speed - runtime or development time. I can't think of too many cases where a Java developer will spend less time than a Perl developer implementing the same functionality. It doesn't matter if it took 5 hours to run or 6 hours, if Perl took a week to write and Java took a month.
Of course it matters. If you're at the dentist, you want the drilling to be done over with quick, and you wouldn't appreciate if he says "it doesn't matter that the drilling takes an hour, does it? They assembled the drill in a week instead of a month!".
If raw speed is a criteria - do it in assembler/C.
Speed is almost always a criteria. It seldomly is the only criteria.
Why not have a coding bake off between their best Java programmer and their best Perl programmer. A set of 10 exercises to be implemented correctly in the shortest space of time. I bet the Perl guy would win. By days...
Well, they had a bake-off. And Java won. But a bake-off you suggest is pointless. You shouldn't pit the best programmers together - but the average, or even the worst programmers. Furthermore, development time isn't everything. Resource usage, speed, maintainability and reusability are vital as well. Besides, if you do 10 exercises, they will all be short programs, which will give Perl an edge. It doesn't measure the suitability for large projects though, which is likely to be more important.
hopefully others can provide links to the myriad of articles about how good Perl is.
Whether Perl is good or not wasn't the question. There are a myriad of articles to be found saying how good Java is - probably more articles saying so then you can find articles saying how good Perl is.
Perl is a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE and an extremely powerful one at that - in fact one could quite easily argue that, featurewise, Perl is much more powerful than Java.
Shouting doesn't help. Since you say that it's easy to argue that Perl is more powerful than Java, could you give some objective arguments, without becoming emotional?

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Is Java really better than Perl???
by leriksen (Curate) on Apr 22, 2004 at 01:44 UTC
    If you have four developers who are handy with Perl, Java, C++ and SQL, surely they can achieve vastly more than four purely Java developers.

    Not sure what you mean here.

    Sorry , I meant each of them was quite competent in each langauge/domain. And whilst finding developers good in multiple languages is hard, my position stands that that these developers will be be better at development (as opposed to using neat features of one language) than a developer who knows one language.

    You don't understand the argument. It's not an argument to pick Java over Perl. It's an argument to not keep Perl.

    but they support that argument with the justification that Java can do anything Perl can - my position is that that is not a sufficient reason in itself to drop Perl

    Shouting doesn't help.

    I wasn't shouting, I was adding emphasis.

    +++++++++++++++++
    #!/usr/bin/perl
    use warnings;use strict;use brain;

      Sorry , I meant each of them was quite competent in each langauge/domain. And whilst finding developers good in multiple languages is hard, my position stands that that these developers will be be better at development (as opposed to using neat features of one language) than a developer who knows one language.
      Oh, sure, and if you get Linus Torvalds or Damian Conway as programmers, they are likely to be better at developming programs than Joe R. Programmer. Still, even if you have the four best programmers in the world, it isn't at all clear that it isn't better if they used one language between them instead of four.
      but they support that argument with the justification that Java can do anything Perl can - my position is that that is not a sufficient reason in itself to drop Perl
      It wasn't presented as a sufficient reason to drop Perl. It was one of the arguments of not keeping Perl. It basically nullifies a possible counter argument, that you can do things with Perl that you can't do with Java.

      Abigail

        Oh, sure, and if you get Linus Torvalds or Damian Conway as programmers...

        Well they are extreme examples, but lets see if I can illustrate my point with them anyway.

        If one had Damian AND Linus working together, my position is that their disparate skills would result in a better development than a team of just clones of one of them. I am certain there is much they both could learn from one another. You state that it isn't clear that one language wouldn't be better or worse than several. My experience tells me that it is clear. Furthermore, my experience tells me that products developed/built with tools that do their particular job very well are better than ones where a single tool tries to be made to do "too much". Just look at a typical (*nix) developers day - shell, Make, ant, java, perl, grep, CVS, SQL, XML - many specific tools/solutions/applications that result in a powerful synergy.

        It was one of the arguments of not keeping Perl.

        I still stand by my assertion this is a weak argument - to me it is patently obvious that Perl is infinitely better at many things than Java, so why one would be so bloody-minded as to force everyone to do those things in a much more difficult way, and justify it by saying having one language is a better use of resource, seems completely bizarre. Why anyone would think that taking 10 hours to write something in Java, that could be done in 3 in Perl, is a good use of resources is beyond me.

        +++++++++++++++++
        #!/usr/bin/perl
        use warnings;use strict;use brain;

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://346961]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (7)
As of 2024-03-28 12:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found