«

"Sridhar R" <> writes:
> What makes such companies to choose Java over dynamic, productive
> languages like Python? Are there any viable, technical reasons for that?

I think you have to be more careful when you program in Python. Java
is statically typed and can do all kinds of compile time checks that
catch errors which can crash your Python program after it's running.
The cure in Python involves very thorough testing, and it often means
more test-debug-edit cycles than you'd need with static typing. It's
also possible to miss stuff--not just type errors, but uncaught
exceptions, errors due to misspelled variable names (Python lacks
declarations), and so forth. Some Pythonistas respond with a blurb
about test-driven development, but really, the idea of programming in
HLL's instead of assembler is that the language is supposed to take
care of stuff so that you don't have to. Java code is larger and
takes longer to write, but has a higher chance of working properly
once it compiles and passes basic tests. (Of course you still have to
test it thoroughly, but you'll tend to hit fewer errors once you've
passed the initial and somewhat high hurdle of getting the code to
work at all).

Basically, highly-skilled programmers can be very productive with
Python, maybe more productive than they can be with Java.
Medium-skilled programmers, which is what the industry is full of, can
mess up very badly with a language like Python. With Java, it's
harder to mess up too badly.

I'm involved in a development project for something that's security
critical and has to be reliable. The implementation language hasn't
been chosen yet. Python and Java are both possibilities. I'm fine
with the idea of using Python for demos and prototypes. For the
production system I think we may be better off using Java.
Reliability of the final product is more important than rapid
implementation.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:59:57 -0500, Steve Holden <>
wrote:
>> We either need time for folks to accept dynamic, "scripting"
>> languages, or a lot of "modern" language programmers need to gang up
>> against managers and stuff.

>[...]
>Right, what have the managers ever done for us?

I must have been slow last night (my usual state), so I
didn't catch your joke.

Respectfully, I have to disagree: Terrific race, managers.
Terrific.



--
It's a man's life in a Python Programming Association.

"Thomas Bartkus" <> writes:

[...]

> > What makes such companies to choose Java over dynamic, productive
> > languages like Python? Are there any viable, technical reasons
> > for that?
>
> Are there "viable, technical reasons"? That would be doubtful.
>
> But
>
> There is a reason very important to major companies. When you leave
> that company, there will be a *long* line of Java programmers
> waiting to take your place.

IMO learning Python is a matter of few days for Java programmer.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 02:13:27 +0100, Bulba! wrote:

> On 30 Dec 2004 08:58:36 -0800, "Sridhar R"
> <> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>>What makes such companies to choose Java over dynamic, productive
>>languages like Python? Are there any viable, technical reasons for
>>that?
>
> It's the $$$ of the big organization behind it and all the
> inertia^H^H^H^H^H^H stability of it.
>
> Note all the fuss that was made when IBM has "spent $1
> billion on Linux", for instance (or so it was said). Managers
> paid attention to that (at least that was my impression).
>
> AFAIK, Linux didn't really change in technical sense
> just because IBM has embraced Linux, or at least not much.
> But to companies and manager the major point is:
>
> Big Blue has embraced it.

[add a few grains of salt to the following...]
Manager culture is still very much mired in rituals that may in one form
or another go back to hunter-gatherer days (or maybe even further); that
'the industry choice' is more often than not something backed by a *major*
company is part of a ritual complex based on relations to the alpha male.
Small companies ingratiate themselves with their perceived betters by
using their products, even when technically far superior products would be
available. When the 'market leader' produces a new toy, everyone who wants
to be in his favor must use it _and_ also damn the toys available from any
of those competing for leadership, viz. the ongoing state of cold war
between Sun and MS and their respective worshipers. Toys that have not
been sanctioned by the leader, or that are, even worse, de facto unknown
to him, are met with ignorance, scorn, or even repression.

[snip]
> For Python a Big Thing would happen if some Major Vendor
> embraced it as its Official Language(tm). Python language
> itself could turn into a smoking crock the very next day, but
> everybody who doesn't live under the rock would still be
> writing in it.

The moral is, of course, that either the Python community's alpha geeks
need to get access to controlling interest in a *major* company (or to
become successful enough with their own companies to register on the
current *major* companies radar as potential competition) or as you
say, Python needs to be embraced like Linux was. That's the way to win the
hearts of software companies' managers.

--
Christopher

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:05:47 +0100, Peter Dembinski wrote:

> "Thomas Bartkus" <> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> > What makes such companies to choose Java over dynamic, productive
>> > languages like Python? Are there any viable, technical reasons
>> > for that?
>>
>> Are there "viable, technical reasons"? That would be doubtful.
>>
>> But
>>
>> There is a reason very important to major companies. When you leave
>> that company, there will be a *long* line of Java programmers
>> waiting to take your place.
>
> IMO learning Python is a matter of few days for Java programmer.

True, but learning to *think* in Python takes a while longer. That static
straitjacket takes some time to loosen...

--
Christopher

Christopher Koppler <> writes:
> The moral is, of course, that either the Python community's alpha
> geeks need to get access to controlling interest in a *major*
> company (or to become successful enough with their own companies to
> register on the current *major* companies radar as potential
> competition) or as you say, Python needs to be embraced like Linux
> was. That's the way to win the hearts of software companies' managers.

It's not just a matter of attitude or politics. Python is an
excellent choice for many projects. For some other projects, it's
clearly unsuitable. For yet other projects, it's a plausible choice
but there are sound technical reasons to be wary of it.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:49:44 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:

> Christopher Koppler <> writes:
>> The moral is, of course, that either the Python community's alpha
>> geeks need to get access to controlling interest in a *major*
>> company (or to become successful enough with their own companies to
>> register on the current *major* companies radar as potential
>> competition) or as you say, Python needs to be embraced like Linux
>> was. That's the way to win the hearts of software companies' managers.
>
> It's not just a matter of attitude or politics. Python is an
> excellent choice for many projects. For some other projects, it's
> clearly unsuitable. For yet other projects, it's a plausible choice
> but there are sound technical reasons to be wary of it.

IMO (and - indubitably limited - experience) in the many cases where it
*would* be an excellent choice, it *is* most often a matter of politics,
to have a project use, say C# or Java instead of Python (or Lisp for that
matter) as the main development language.

--
Christopher

Christopher Koppler <> writes:
> IMO (and - indubitably limited - experience) in the many cases where it
> *would* be an excellent choice, it *is* most often a matter of politics,
> to have a project use, say C# or Java instead of Python (or Lisp for that
> matter) as the main development language.

I don't know that C# is really that much different from Python. I
haven't used it but I have the impression that it's sort of similar
under the skin.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 04:03:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:

> Christopher Koppler <> writes:
>> IMO (and - indubitably limited - experience) in the many cases where it
>> *would* be an excellent choice, it *is* most often a matter of politics,
>> to have a project use, say C# or Java instead of Python (or Lisp for that
>> matter) as the main development language.
>
> I don't know that C# is really that much different from Python. I
> haven't used it but I have the impression that it's sort of similar
> under the skin.

Well, it *does* take some pointers from Python but it's still
much more like Java (and even C++) under the hood, AFAIK. I'll get to
know firsthand soon, though, as I'll have to acquaint myself fully with
C#'s benefits, pitfalls and whatnot for a new project I'm on that (for
definitely political reasons) will have it as the main development
language. I'd pity myself if it weren't temporary; Python withdrawal isn't
good for my health

--
Christopher

Paul Rubin <http://> writes:

[...]

> I'm involved in a development project for something that's security
> critical and has to be reliable. The implementation language hasn't
> been chosen yet. Python and Java are both possibilities. I'm fine
> with the idea of using Python for demos and prototypes. For the
> production system I think we may be better off using Java.
> Reliability of the final product is more important than rapid
> implementation.

If it has to be both reliable and secure, I suggest you used more
redundant language such as Ada 95.