Another thing I like is that people seemed to really be using Python to do useful things. There wasn't nearly so much time spent talking about Why Python Is Good, or How To Sell Python To Your Boss. That's kind of silly anyway -- if you are at the conference, you don't need to be sold on it. But even so, the language seems to be in a much more self-confident place, and the users don't need to spend so much time justifying their choices.Ian's comment reminds me of what the bad old days were like ten years ago. Java was the new kid on the block, had a huge marketing budget, and dominated the discussion on new development. Java was a net positive, because it displaced C, C++ (and, to some degree, VisualBasic) on many projects that simply needed a better language. At the same time, it was a huge bunch of hype, and it focused attention away from perfectly capable languages like Lisp, Perl, Python and Tcl.
As a result, there was a movement for 'language advocacy' to convince people that
$YOUR_PET_LANGUAGE was demonstrably better than Java in at least some areas. A well-balanced argument might mention that Java was better in some areas, but in practice, those areas weren't particularly important. On a bad day, it was about promoting $YOUR_PET_LANGUAGE over Java and just about everything else.I haven't seen much language advocacy recently, and I certainly haven't seen much of it in relation to Haskell (or its cousin, OCaml). I, too, think this is a good thing. I'm not sure why it's happening, but I've got some theories. Perhaps it's because I've grown as a programmer, and I avoid those arguments, so I don't notice them anymore. Perhaps it's because 'language advocacy' has gone out of vogue. I have a feeling it's the latter, but I can't prove anything.
Ian certainly brings up an important point. Being successful, building systems, and being confident your tools are capable certainly makes a powerful case. Convincing others that your tools are better, or at least worthy of consideration is a losing position. Some teams are happy and wildly productive with Java (or C, or C++), and it doesn't make sense to switch languages because they might offer something nebulous like more productivity or more joy. Some teams are very risk averse, so sticking to something mainstream like Java or C# makes sense, since there's little doubt someone will be able work on the system five to ten years from now.
Then there's the Paul Graham effect. In his essay Beating the Averages, Paul postulates that some languages are simply more powerful than others, and demonstrates that a good team can always manage to build a system, regardless of the tools they choose.
Since Paul released that essay, Java and C# have also evolved. So maybe there's an expectation of tool choice -- not only whether to use Java or C#, but also which version of the VM to use, or whether it's wiser to avoid those issues entirely and opt for a stable platform like Python or Ruby.
Whatever the reasons are, I'm happy that we're moving past 'language advocacy'.
1 comment:
I haven't seen much language advocacy recently, and I certainly haven't seen much of it in relation to Haskell (or its cousin, OCaml).
Really? From where I'm standing Haskell advocacy is everywhere. Have you looked at Reddit recently? :-)
It's rather irritating - instead of concentrating on the nice things about Haskell, I'm constantly put off by its failure (IMHO) to live up to the hype, and the rather superior attitude of many Haskell users (though many others, it has to be said, have been extremely helpful and friendly)
Post a Comment