He only briefly alluded to it (80% politics, 20% technology), but like so much else that is discussed in terms of tools and technologies, this is a people problem. It's depressing, really.
He only briefly alluded to it (80% politics, 20% technology), but like so much else that is discussed in terms of tools and technologies, this is a people problem. It's depressing, really.
Right now we have 20 years worth of legacy code in ADA. We have a legal obligation to maintain a large percentage of that code to 2075. Our demand for programmers in this location is such that essentially we run training schools to meet demand and would have to do the same in any language.
What _possible_ advantage would there be in moving to a new language for new projects? Before the life cycle is up any new toy would be old and rusty. We have to train programmers anyway. Supporting two languages would double the overhead. Our existing skill base is productive in ADA. Real Software Engineering is only 5% programming at most.
This is of course a bit of an extreme example - but it serves to illustrate the point that in the continuum there will be plenty of companies on the 'don't move' side of the equation, where it is far more profitable to stay with what they already know, at least for now.
That's exactly what I want to hear! Let them keep their 600+ page C# spec and their 10+ year java resume - leaves more opportunity for people are willing to "take the risk" and pick the best tools.
Seriously, google "Alt.NET". They're people whose toolchain is not 100% Microsoft, and they're outcasts.
Python and Ruby are doing tons of things right on the social/cultural side, but the technology was in many ways a big step backwards from Smalltalk and Lisp. The poor performance serves to reinforce the old dynamic language stereotypes.