This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by Vincent Foley. Original Post: Old argument Feed Title: Vincent Foley-Bourgon Feed URL: http://www.livejournal.com/~gnuvince/data/rss Feed Description: Vincent Foley-Bourgon - LiveJournal.com Latest Ruby Buzz Posts Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by Vincent Foley Latest Posts From Vincent Foley-Bourgon

When you suggest using a new programming language to a manager that is not .NET or Java, they will usually say no because it’s hard for them to hire programmers who know the language in case you leave/die. However, here’s a flip view of this argument.

What if the core group of Java died or left Sun Microsystems? According to a blog entry by Slava Pestov, the source code for HotSpot is absolutely horrible. 3 million lines of Java and C++! Aren’t managers worried that their company depends on a product in which the compiler is horribly designed? What if this endless bloat just causes the system to have nearly untraceable bugs? This could be really bad. Whatever happened to the principle that a programming system should be simple enough for one person to understand completely? This is what happens in languages such as Factor, IO, Slate and Scheme. It’s true also, but to a lesser extent I would guess in languages such as Ruby, Python, Smalltalk or Common Lisp. But having a non-open system that nobody could reasonnably understand fully does not seem to worry the average manager as much as finding someone who can learn a new programming language.

Learning a new language is rather easy, especially if you have experience in other languages. I’m pretty sure someone who knows Java could get a grip of Ruby in just a few days. After the first few days, he’ll be a more cost-effective programmer. Why don’t managers think like this? Follow the herd, follow the herd, don’t be different, conform to what people do, nevermind if it’s stupid.