Adam Turoff said: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:57:47AM -0500, Greg London wrote: >> Adam Turoff said: >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Greg London wrote: >> >> From a game-theory point of view, I think certification is an overall >> win. >> >> The worst case scenario for certification would be that gurus have to >> >> get their manager to pay for them to take the test. >> >> >> >> The worst case scenario for no certification would be that perl gets >> >> replaced with some other language that has more programmers. >> > >> > That is a gross oversimplification. There are oodles of ways >> > certification is a net loss; I won't rehash them; they've been >> > mentioned ad nauseum here and elsewhere. >> >> The point of "worst case" is to boil it down to one condition. >> It isn't oversimplification or bifurcation of an issue, >> its worst case result of something. > > Stating that the _one_ "worst case for certification" is for Perl > programmers get their managers to pay fees is missing the point. You do > not entertain the possibility that certification could possibly be bad > and do damage to the community, for example. > > Another "worst case for certification" is that the community bifurcates > from those who are rabidly anti-certification, and they take their > efforts and talents elsewhere. And their patches. And stop maintaining > their modules.
Funny. What happened to programmers being about "getting the job done"? My worst case scenario assumed that programmers knew that perl was the best language for the job at hand. Certification was only a means to get over the non-technical logic implemented by the manager to select the language. If you want to take the worst cast scenario and set it to a point where the perl programmers are so rabidly irrational that they'll choose something other than the best language for the job because it has certification, then we should discuss your premise that programmers are all about "getting the job done". If perl is teh best language for the job and a rabid perl programmer leaves perl because of certification, then I would say that Perl would be a lot better off without that programmer. Rabid cheerleading helps no one. > Another "worst case for certification" is the gradual dumbing down of > the caliber of Perl programmers that Joe Average Manager can hire. I > could go on. "dumbing down of the caliber"? "can hire"? suddenly because of certification, people can no longer learn perl to the degree of expertise they do now? after chastizing me for oversimplifying on at least two occaisions, you really need to show the same level of logical accuracy that you demand of me. certification won't restrict the caliber of programmers that a manager CAN hire. It might cause them to hire an idiot with a certificate, but I've worked with plenty of people who had a great resume and were idiot programmers. >> The oodles of ways that have been mentioned here all revolve >> around an idiot with a certificate, and that isn't any worse >> than the current situation. If there are other, more significant >> problems with certification, then mention them, and it should >> be the end of teh conversation. But just talking about ghosts >> without any evidence doesn't really forward anything. > > I'm talking about ghosts because I'm tired of reopening Pandora's box, > thankyouverymuch. :-) But since you've asked for it, here are some of > the more popular ones: > > - Certification doesn't _prove_ anything. It's mostly a means to > weed out resumes when you have 1000 applicants for one job. no negative consequences. minor positive consequences. > - The point behind certification efforts is generally to "grow the > pool of Perl programmers". The logic is that a rising tide lifts > all ships: more jobs for entry level programmers, more jobs for > gurus, and so on. However: > - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a mass of > programmers ready to use Perl, if only there were a > certification they could get straw man logic. no one is claiming that people would learn perl "if only there were a certification". programmers learn the language that works best for the job, whether it has certification or not. Certification is only to get the non-technical people to choose perl. > - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a pool of > employers that do not use Perl simply because there are no > certified applicants anectodal evidence says otherwise. Has anyone ever done a study? a lack of evidence is not the same as saying it isn't true. > - there is no demonstrable evidence that simply offering > "certification" will answer the questions hiring managers will > ask Irrelevant: the same could be said of the contents on most resumes. that is the purpose of an interview. any manager that hires solely on a resume or a certificate is an idiot and deserves whatever idiot he hires. > - Many Perl trainers are vehemently anti-certification. A > certification without a supporting training curriculum is dead in > the water. "many Perl trainers"?? A majority? or the six that answered the poll? anyone who is "vehemently" anything is not choosing the best language to "get the job done". And I have faith in capitalism that if certification were developed, OTHER trainers would step in and do the job if the vehement trainers won't. Just because they are vehement doesn't mean they are right or that they have a monopoly on training gigs. > - Sure, they could turn around, and sure, other trainers are just > as vehemently pro-certification. But this difference of opinion > should be resolved before any certification effort moves > forward, and it's been a complete logjam for years. "this difference should be resolved before any certification moves forward" hm. how do you resolve anything with a group who is "vehemently" opposed to what you're trying to do???? How do you move an unmovable object? "We are vehemently against certification. and you should resolve these issues with us before certification moves forward." Perhaps the answer to the logjam to do dig a channel around the obstruction in the river. There is more than one way to do it, after all. Maybe the way to do it in this case is to NOT resolve the differences with the vehement opposition, but to move forward with certification and chalk it up to being yet another way to do it. > - Lots of programmers have a whole litany of excuses as to why they > avoid using Perl. Ugly code is one. Excessive use of punctuation > is another. Impenetrable regular expressions a third. "Odd" OOP > practices a fourth. And so on. Lack of certification options is > almost never a reason for programmers to not use Perl. Irrelevant logic. we're talking about convincing non-programmers to use perl, not about why programmers did NOT choose perl. Programmers should pick the best language for the job. Certification should help programmers convince managers to use perl when the programmers have determined that perl is the right language to use but the manager wants something else for non-technical reasons. > - Another reason why Perl is a minority language is that it's not > used in academic curricula. Certification will not solve that > problem, either. We'll still have a glut of VB, Java and C# > programmers after a certification is done. non-sequitor. Perl not being in acedemia is irrelvant to certification. It is a separate problem. The fact that certification does not solve an unrelated problem is irrelevant to whether certification should be adopted. > - One reason why many shops avoid Perl is the lack of vendor > support. Certification does nothing to address this. Yes, and certification doesn't solve Perl's problem with slow execution, and therefore certification shouldn't be adopted??? in other words, this is another non-sequitor. > - Even with a certification program, the underlying problems with > Perl still need to be addressed: mod_perl is too hard to manage in > many situations, applications like RT take entirely too much work > to install, and so on. [1] wow. non-sequitor again. This is talking about whether or not perl is technically the best language for the job. If it isn't then certification won't change that. But then again, nothing will. If perl isn't the right language for the job, it just isn't. =================================================== So, in total, your entire body of arguments against certification seem to rely on satisfying the Perl Programmers who are vehemently anti-certification. If we start certification, some perl programmers might throw a temper tantrum and storm off to Java. That's it in a nutshell. Regardless of any business-level benefits that certification might bring to perl, we can't because someone might pout and leave. I say perl would be better off without them. _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
