bryan.sant at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 15:23:43 MST 2006
On 1/25/06, Roberto Mello <rmello at fslc.usu.edu> wrote:
Yikes. Can't I just mod this as troll and move on?
> While you're at it, you could get away from Java to a dynamic language
> and reap pretty much the same effects:
> - Developer performance goes (way) up
This is only true if you're restricted to use vim or emacs. If all
you have is a text editor, then a verbose, typesafe language like Java
is a hindrance. If you use an IDE such as Eclipse or NetBeans, your
productivity with Java and these tools far outstrips that of dynamic
languages. I hardly type at all, the IDE does all the work for me.
Additionally, dynamic languages have always hit a major wall when
dealing with larger projects. As long as your project is trivially
small, or very well suited to the original problem domain of that
language, you're better off with a stricter, type-safe language.
> - Runtime performance goes up
Completely incorrect. Java is significantly faster than any dynamic
language. It is nearly as fast as C/C++. Get your facts straight.
Run some of your own benchmark tests if you must.
> - Complexity goes way down
So long as it is small enough for a single person or small group to
maintain. For larger projects, type-safety and mature frameworks save
time and reduce errors. The same effect *could* be achieved by
asserting the correctness of parameters by a dynamic language, but now
you've just impacted run-time performance and your productivity just
went out the window.
> I'd add:
> - Headaches go way down
Well there you have it. The undeniable proof we've all been waiting for :-).
> - Cost goes down
This completely depends on the project and project size. I would say
the opposite is true for most serious project with a team larger than
a few people.
> - Need for consultants goes down
If your staff isn't skilled enough to work with Java, then I'm sure
this is true. But this is true of any technology. I don't know Lisp.
If I were working with a project written in Lisp I may need a
consultant. What does this prove? That I don't know what I'm doing
with Lisp, not that Lisp requires more consultants.
More information about the PLUG