On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 15:15, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's now assume that Victor is right, that is he saturated his > potential with Java and he only can improve with Scala. So, for his > own advantage, he's right in moving to Scala. Now, I can't be sure > that Victor will always work for me. If at a certain point he decides > to leave, he'll carry with him his Scala skills and he'll be able to > spend them wherever he likes. Instead, I'm left alone. Victor is sure > that what's planning for himself in a medium/long perspective can be > achieved (unless he wins the Bingo and retires); I can't because a > perspective of one year might be jeopardized by the fact that Victor > might be leaving me earlier. So, the better solution for _him_ is not > the better solution for _me_. It's not reasonable to discuss the > possible success of a programming technology in the industry from the > developer perspective, since developers aren't the one who make decisions.
Isn't this the old "I can't find replacement cogs for X, so let's not use X" argument? There's some validty to this, but I've always wondered: Why do we only hear this when it comes to *new scary languages*, but never libraries, APIs, etc.? How is it that (we suppose) the PHBs have the world run screaming in terror from Scala, and yet think nothing of subjecting their entire organization to EJB 2.0? Websphere? DOM? Somehow a huge API and a pile of XML configuration crapventions is OK, but OMG where's my semicolon is a crisis!? Somehow I'm missing the clear bright line between "new language" (hard to learn) and "new API" (we can just hire anyone off the street). Seeking enlightenment // Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
