In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Rolsky) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > This is a point that is well worth reinforcing. I have never been able to
> > figure out why anyone would try to become an XYZ programmer rather than
> > just a programmer. I don't hire C++ programmers or Perl programmers. I
>
> Well, I am pretty much only a Perl programmer. The reason is that Perl is
> a lot of fun for me to program in. I learned enough C and C++ to know
> that they don't appeal to me. Same for Python. I actually think I'd
> enjoy Ruby but there's so many things lacking in the libraries (no CPAN,
> no DBI) at this point that I'd have to seriously reinvent the wheel to
> get any work done with it.
>
> I'm trying to find work that I enjoy. For me so far, that means Perl. If
> I couldn't do Perl, I might not be a programmer.
Dave, that's a fine point, and I might find myself in a similar boat
someday. Maybe if I can't get Perl work, I'll decide to not be a
programmer. But I don't think that detracts from my point: if you want
to be a programmer, then you need to be flexible. But your point is
that you don't want to be a programmer, you want to be a Perl programmer.
In my experience, most businesses don't want language specialists, no
matter what language it is. So you are severely limiting your options
from the start. If you want to do that, that's fine and good. But
getting businesses to "accept Perl more" won't change the substance of
that.
I don't exactly remember, but I think that might have been my point.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
