Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer |
|
PerlMonks |
Re^2: Defending Perlby jdporter (Paladin) |
on Nov 16, 2007 at 14:46 UTC ( [id://651223]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Big enterprise, wants predictable recipes for things, not the wild hubris that Perl allows. They want employees trained in a system that allows for the employees to be disposable such that replacements can step right in and understand the objects. Quite right. Which reminds me of one more thing: they want languages which play nice with CASE tools — both for reverse engineering (deducing object models from source code) and for "forward engineering" (generating source code from models). Java is great for this; Perl, not so much. :-) ... object models that reflect their company, which are compatible with other company's models ( makes buyouts and mergers easier) ... Interesting hypothesis, but I think rather too optimistic. In my experience, companies tend quite the opposite way: every one wants to invent their own models; even when another company's models might be demonstrably better, the "not invented here" mentality almost always rules. I see this a lot, especially in the government sector.
A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
In Section
Meditations
|
|