On Oct 5, 4:59 am, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > does it now make sense to also put more control > over the choice of language into the hands of the people who will actually > be using it?
No, you want to take into consideration longer term concerns like the readability of the code, and the maintenance concerns. You also have to take into account the skillsets of the current team, and what type of developers you will need in the future. So you don't want developers to just pick whatever language they want for a part of a project, you want a software architect or some technical person of some authority to do that instead. > On the other hand, are these > considerations fundamentally different when choosing libraries such as > hibernate, spring, lambdaj or lombok, or when choosing testng in preference > to lombok? and is code reuse in many organisations really high enough that > you can't already claim the codebases of different projects are fragmented? > In truth, is the suffering all that great where we *already* use different > languages for parts of a system (SQL and javascript anyone...)? I think a different computer language is a much different thing than selecting a library, but even for a 3rd party library there should be some process in your organization that you have to go through to use it. I remember a project where two people were trying to do something with timers, one picked Quartz the other picked some timer infrastructure on Spring, but they're both trying to do the same. That's not what you want to happen! SQL and Javascript are good examples; both standard technologies and have very specific uses, you need to access a database? Use SQL, you need to do a webapp on a browser go with Javascript. In those cases these different technologies really solve a specific issue and need to be supported. I think that's not the same as somebody picking a language because it eliminates a few characters per line of code, or has features that are purely just for syntactic sugar. > Where is the balance here? Is it really still acceptable, in this day and > age, for management to mandate that "though shalt use Java, and only Java"? In some cases this may be necessary. In others you'll need a different mix of technologies. What you don't want is a project where everybody is using very different technologies that makes it harder for somebody to understand the code or maintain it in the future. -- 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.
