Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
hi ( 05.02.28 21:07 -0500 ) James Linden Rose, III: However Mr. Shwartz's model of the problem does not reflect majority opinion with respect to the breadth of the issue, (especially as it seems to be peppered with idealism and anti-capitalism). whoa- idealism and anti-capitalism smells like free spirit Eh, let us return to my earlier point... a prominent and vocal MINORITY. i don't think this is an issue that's resolved solely by democratic means- what about the merits of the arguments? what about the process of trading opinions? 'because a lot of other people want it' is not a very compelling reason to people who make up their own minds. instead of trying to 'win' the argument on the boston.pm list, you might be better off just trying to set up a certification program. [then the real work will begin] Industry would welcome a more qualified system which addresses specific skills as well. especially the certification industry ... -- \js oblique strategy: do something boring ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 10:54 PM, Ben Tilly wrote: In an interview what you just said would make me worried. You're using a technique that you don't understand. Interesting that you've imagined yourself in a position to be interviewing me. Not a very likely scenario though. However Mr. Shwartz's model of the problem does not reflect majority opinion with respect to the breadth of the issue, When you misspelled Schwartzian transform, I thought it was possibly a typo. But you've made the same mistake again. His name is Schwartz. With a silent c in it. Agree or disagree with him, it is polite to get his name correct. It must really suck not to have anything relevant to certification to say, and yet wanting to say so much so badly. Back handed personal attacks seldom further your point of view. Future advice, people who start and run their own businesses are seldom anti-capitalistic. If you think that they are being so, then you're probably missing something important about how they perceive their own economic interests. A lecture about what people who start and run their own business are like? PLEASE TELL ME MORE! Randal speaks a little on his interest in money on the page you suggested, and I don't think this would be characterized as naked capitalist greed: I've worked too hard over the past decade to help this community in as many free ways as I can, and get paid for the things that I have to get paid for so that I can put food on the table and pay for my net access. In a straw poll of the 3 programmers sitting closest to me, one was slightly against, one slightly for, and one didn't care. I think that that's probably representative. Well, gee, I had no idea that the guy next to you agrees... MIT is also the school which introduced Scheme as a way of introducing programming. Point being? I doubt that Carnegie-Mellon teaches a course whose purpose is to specifically help you pass the MCSE. Point being? (If it does, I guarantee that I can find people in the department who're not very happy about it.) I think you misunderstand why the great technical schools are so great. Rule 1: They seldom get caught up in the mental masturbation of the impractical. Having sold MIT to industry for 7 years in a past life I can safely say that its close ties to the practical concerns of industry are its greatest strength, and why an MIT education prepares students to be relevant to the real world. Hire somebody from a school more caught up in ivory tower snobbery, and you have to wait at least a year before they come up to speed. Furthermore even in professional schools (medicine, law, etc), while the school may provide practical training, the faculty are still expected to participate in (and are likely to be primarily judged on) research. That's certainly true of both schools that you mention. You use every misdirection debating technique in existence. Engineering research is hardly academia. At least at MIT and to a lesser extent CMU, it is almost always looking toward a practical application. Net result: 4,000 MIT related companies. 12 Nobel prize winners on staff. The deepest industrial ties of any school in the world. I stand by my comment that, charter's notwithstanding, universities are not supposed to be in the business of vocational training. (Although they are often pushed in that direction, particularly by students and parents of students who go there to help job prospects.) Sigh. Yes. They are not votech schools teaching welding and oil filter replacement. This might work out, or might not. I'm inclined towards pessimism, but have no real evidence supporting that. It would make life easier for companies that need to hire Perl programmers for basic routine programming jobs. Its not a guru netting tool, but gurus are not what many companies need. I would love to have somebody to take over many of the mundane Perl tasks I have at my company one day. I don't need to hire a Randal or a Larry nearly as much as I need somebody basically trained. Somebody I can trust to do basic level tasks so I can focus on growth and marketing. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
I think we're still getting ahead of ourselves here. YES, we are all Perl programmers and love Perl. That doesn't mean we have to see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING else. It'd be nice. But who are we kidding. We're all different. I bring this up to help wash over some of these extraneous issues: 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. A good programmer is a good programmer. A good person is a good person. If someone is going to stop programming in Perl simply because it becomes popular (and therfore flooded with lesser programmers), then that person is REALLY immature and (I hate to say it) an idiot. There are good reasons to do a lot of things. But stopping from doing something good that you love simply because other people are doing it too just sounds a little too a-la-13-year-old for me to really put much care into. Good riddens I say. - 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 We're talking need based. If a certification program were created, then managers would want more Perl programmers, then the need for new Perl programmers would increase, and people would respond. That IS demonstrated. It's economics 101. This is incredibly well documented. - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a pool of employers that do not use Perl simply because there are no certified applicants We've listed several instances where the manager/boss simply doesn't know enough to know that Perl is a good thing. This whole discussion is in an attempt to find ways to make managers see that Perl is real and respectable. we believe that certification would HELP in this manner. - Many Perl trainers are vehemently anti-certification. A certification without a supporting training curriculum is dead in the water. Again, if people want to be stupid, they can be. If you're a talented Perl programmer who can train other people, then you're in good standing to make more money and teach MORE people how to program Perl better than if they learned elsewhere or on their own. If you want to flee because it gets popular... again you're immature and an idiot. Sorry. Plus there are, as you said plenty of other Perl Gurus (some on this list) who are definitely capable, and probably willing. Again we're trying to better the Perl communittee. If trainers are going to run away now, then they don't have the Perl comunittee in their list of interests. - 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. Again, you're talking about programmers here. Better programming practices can be solved in a number of different ways and times. Right now, we're trying to convince the bosses. The bosses are not going to know or understand any of the above. Perl is NOT the solution to all problems. But it IS the solution to far more problems than managers are aware. - 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. Actually WPI, and other education institutions are starting to ban the use of PHP and other languages due to bugginess and insecurities. WPI does most of its programming in Perl; by the end of the summer we shoudl be entirely PHP-free. And proud of it! - One reason why many shops avoid Perl is the lack of vendor support. Certification does nothing to address this. Verndors avoid Perl, because you don't NEED anything to program perl. So they can't make any money off it. This is actually a selling point ot managers. Perl is WAY cheaper than most other languages that you can compare it to. You don't need any expensive software or hardware to use it. - 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] Again, back on the programming side of things. Certificaiton might actually help with this. It might open up more opportunities for further education and training in Perl. Once Java certification came about a lot of people wanted to learn more. So more training facilities openned up to do
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
The crux of the problem, is that these questions aren't getting answered: - Can we create a certification that will deliver benefits X, Y and Z? Yes. No one said it would be easy or happen tomorrow. - Is certification a necessary precondition for X, Y and Z? - Aren't problems X', Y' and Z' really caused by something else, not the lack of certification? Certification is not Necessary for anything. It's just something trying to help out a situation. It's not THE solution. It's part of the solution. - Are X, Y and Z important? Desirable? Achievable? Importatn enough for us to argue over it. I know that doesn't really mean much. But the lack of respect that Perl gets has caused a lot of pain, problems, and waste (of time, money, and effort). - Shouldn't we really be focusing on A, B and C instead? We should keep our minds and attention available to a lot of things. As I said, this is not THE solution; it is merely a part of it. Other things need to be considered as well. --Alex ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl --appologizing
I'm sorry everyone. When I first brought up the question of certification I was really just looking for a way to communicate to people who don't know anything about Perl. I love Perl. I think it can and does do some wonderful things. When I heard the sad story of someone arguing with his manager about Perl it just sparked a feeling in me, reminding me of each time I had to explain why Perl is so good to someone who really should have already know about it. I figured if I emailed my buddies on the Boston.pm list we'd get somewhere. It pains me to see good things get hidden away. You all have always been so friendly, helpful, and full of love for Perl that I figured we might be able to do something. I'm sorry this ended up being such a sensitive subject. I'm still interested in helping to communicate Perl to the world, but I think all these discussions should move off the list, at least for now. Thanks. --Alex ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl --appologizing
Alex Brelsfoard said: I'm sorry everyone. Alex, you of all people have done nothing to apologize for. You wanted to find a way to make Perl more widely accepted. Had the conversation been allowed to takes its natural course, it might have petered out quickly or it might have come up with a novel idea. But instead, you got sucked into defending yourself. Had the conversation stayed on topic and not gone into political science, world history, and end-of-the-perl-world scenarios, the whole discussion would have been no big deal. I jumped in mainly because no one would let you even think about having a conversation about certification. And I eventually blew my stack on the list, and I apologize for the cursing and name calling that I put on the list. But you shouldn't apologize for a legitimate question just because of how people reacted to it. I'm still interested in helping to communicate Perl to the world, but I think all these discussions should move off the list, at least for now. Yeah, I think it's been beaten to the point where anyone who may have wanted to brainstorm is too exhausted to care right now. I know I am. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:55:58 -0600 (CST), Alex Brelsfoard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My impression is that the language which is making the most inroads on traditional Perl areas is PHP. Is that because of the wonderful certifications that PHP has which Perl doesn't? Or is it because PHP is seen as easier to get started with than Perl? Also PHP has the huge advantage that hosting environments allow it to be used in a shared hosting environment, while mod_perl requires dedicated servers. (That is because PHP is less capable, so it is hard for one site to cause problems for other sites running in the same Apache process.) Are you telling me that this DOESN'T keep you up at nights? I know I'm exaggerating, but this is partly what gets me riled up: that simply because something is easier to get started with it's better. Hell the PHP documentation itself explains why it's easier to get started with: it gives su-root permissions on install. So you don't need to configure anything. Just sit down and play; no worries about not being able to do anything, because you basically have root. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to take on that huge a security hole just to make the setup process easier. To me this just gives me more reason to fight harder to tell managers that Perl is the way to go. If everything that depressed me kept me up at nights, I'd never get any sleep. It sounds to me like you should read the classic essay, Worse is Better: http://www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.html No matter how much I may wish it otherwise, the world will be as it is regardless of what I can do. So I'll try to educate my corner and then survive as best I can. Suppose that we try this and it doesn't work. Does the argument then become that we need to get our certification backed by someone prominent because a certification that nobody has heard of is proving to be useless? We're just trying to find ways to communicate to managers that know nothing about Perl. This is just one idea. And I think well worht TRYING. If certification had no potential downsides, then I'd cheer you. But it has potential downsides that concern me, so I won't. Fortunately, unlike worse is better, what I'd like to have happen will happen naturally without any effort on my part. Also I have a different theory. My theory is that the non-savvy manager is going to ask someone he trusts for an opinion, who is either going to be someone whose competence has been proven (less likely), or is going to be someone else of about the same position and abilities (more likely). In neither case does the existence of a certification enter into the process. Well if he is about the same position and abilities then the certification program will be advertising to him/her as well. Here are some questions to ask yourself about this. - How much money do you wish to spend on advertising? - Where do you expect that money to come from? - Would that be a cost-effective use of that money? - Will the people whose money you're expecting to use agree? So now I need to take an endless stream of training from an approved source? Well, as was explained before. Certification is only PART of the hiring process. If you get one certificate and then spend years working with perl you obviously don't need another certificate. Your experience will trump your certificate at that point. I'm trying to see how this certificate does more than being able to put on your resume, I've taken these courses from trainer X. I've seen people say that on their resumes, and I paid attention. I did not necessarily recommend the hire, but you don't need a recognizable certificate to realize value from training. And remember to give the correct answer on a test even when I think it is wrong? (Quick: is our a good thing? Read http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=48379 before answering. Yet as cool feature of the day I'm sure that a certification would have required me to talk up how great it was.) Well, chalk that up to the proper design of the certification program. At this point we're past deciding whether or not to DO the certification. We're at the point of deciding how best to do the certification. If you're going to dream of a certification, why not dream of a perfectly adminstered one? My point is that existing certifications are notorious for having specific shortcomings. Unless you give me a good reason to believe that this would be different, I'm going to believe that your certification would be as bad as the rest. A certification that has very prominent and vocal opponents within the community is likely to have an uphill battle to acceptance. A certification that didn't have enough support for people to learn what they need to pass it is going to find that the hill is looking more like a cliff. I thought we were discussing this because we were already looking up said hill. And my
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
hi ( 05.02.25 17:13 -0500 ) Greg London: So, if Certification convinces Mike to allow perl, and Eve isn't an idiot, it's an overall win. and if elephants had wings, they'd be the biggest birds by far. -- \js oblique strategy: ask people to work against their better judgement ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
John Saylor said: hi ( 05.02.25 16:56 -0500 ) James Linden Rose, III: Certification for Perl will certainly NOT raise the intellectual bar of its practitioners, but it will certainly make many more people into converts on both the programmer and the manager side of the equation. converts to what- perl or certification? converts to using perl on a project. i.e. getting the Manager to get behind the decision to use perl on the project rather than some other language. I think that would benefit Perl, but I don't see that it will benefit the currently standing group of monger gurus. well, what kind of a [perl] monger guru are you thinking of? wouldn't a guru want to increase the benefits in and around perl programming practice? I would think so. 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. Would you rather go through the trouble of taking a test to keep programming in perl? Or would you rather there be no perl jobs at all? Greg ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i still have my cert that i bought from them for my $2! it is all the perl cert i need. At the very least there should be a Perl hacker test (I haven't seen one). Here's a start... I'll be glad to maintain this (if there's been others, please let me know) Ted Give yourself 1 point for every true answer. Have you ever written a Perl script? 0001 ...over 1000 lines? 0002 ...over 1 lines? 0003 ...over 10 lines? 0004 ...without newlines? 0005 Do you know the difference between Perl and perl? 0006 Have you met Larry? 0007 Damian? 0008 Jarkko? 0009 Dan? 000A Randal? 000B Do you know anyone who's written a book on Perl? 000C Have you written a book on Perl? 000D ...for O'Reilly? 000E Is your name in the Perl 5 source code? 000F ...as a curse word? 0010 Is your name in the Perl 6 source code? 0011 ...will it be out soon? 0012 ...do you promise? 0013 Do you know any Perl jokes? 0014 Have you tried to tell them to non-programmers? 0015 ...at a party? 0016 ...as a pickup line? 0017 ...did it work? 0018 Have you ever read clpm? 0019 ...posted on clpm? 001A ...a FAQ reference? 001B ...a FAQ correction? 001C ...started a flame war on clpm? 001D ...trolled on clpm? 001E ...argued with Abigail? 001F Have you read all the Apocalypses? 0020 ...and get them? 0021 Have you read the Exegeses? 0022 ...and forwarded them to someone? ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
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. Would you rather go through the trouble of taking a test to keep programming in perl? Or would you rather there be no perl jobs at all? The number of perl jobs is one metric, but certainly not the only one, and definitely not the most important one. At the end of the day, all that matters is can you get the job done? There are a few variations on that theme, like ...on time?, ...on budget?, ...with X staff?, ...with X performance?, ...on X platform?, and so on. The number of Perl job openings today, during the boom, or during the bust is largely irrelevant. Java was supposed to be the programming languages to end all programming languages. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. Interestingly, the whole Java community seems to be slowly awaking from it's overcomplexification of programming, and developing lightweight systems (the kind of stuff that's natural to write with Perl). Over time, we've seen legacy systems ditched for Perl reimplementations, and Perl systems ditched for PHP, Java, C#, C, and other reimplementations. It's all cyclical. If Perl makes it easy to solve problems, it'll win. If not, it deserves a lesser status. Same as any other technology from Assembly Language to Z-machines. Z. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 09:28 AM, John Saylor wrote: hi ( 05.02.25 16:56 -0500 ) James Linden Rose, III: Certification for Perl will certainly NOT raise the intellectual bar of its practitioners, but it will certainly make many more people into converts on both the programmer and the manager side of the equation. converts to what- perl or certification? If certification existed, more people would study Perl because they would be able to obtain a piece of paper that proves they understand it to some industry standard, and they could then use their certified credentials to suggest Perl for real world problem solving. Presenting 3rd party evidence that they can indeed pull off their proposal is what Perl needs. It would also allow managers who are not programmers to feel more confident that Perl was a serious language that could accomplish industrial strength tasks, and that the person presenting himself to be hired has a requisite level of skill with Perl to be trusted with the task. Without certification there is no way for the non-programmer to judge if anyone presenting themselves as a Perl programmer knows anything, and Perl looks very amateurish to the uninitiated non-programmer when compared to languages with formal certification and corporate support. In addition to the story I told about my own company is a story from my old job at MIT. Our boss hired an Israeli woman tasked with deciding on the next version of our in-house data management system... I had to sit on many of the endless meetings to discuss the system we needed, and when I approached her about how wasteful I thought her spending plans were as I knew that what we needed was quite simple and I could do it myself, she refused to even discuss building any of the tools the office needed in-house because Perl wasn't a real language in her mind, and my boss considered her to be an expert since she knew that Java programmers were certified professionals. They then blew $500,000 on a system I could have built for free in my spare time in a fraction of the time (they still haven't finished their system and about 7 years have gone by now since the start of discussion), a system that they cannot maintain without further expenditures of both time and money in perpetuity and at a very great level of expense. Had they simply hired an in-house Perl guy with even basic familiarity with the language they could have built a vastly superior system faster and on the cheap - and she/he could have been hired for less money than I was making. A Perl guy could also have modified the system on-the-fly as the need arose in near real-time instead of every few years having a two year committee to decide what the next system should be able to do two years later. I've never witnessed more wasteful decisions in my life, and almost entirely because my suggestion to use a little Perl programming held no weight in the minds of the blissfully ignorant. Perl is nearly invisible in the non-IT professional world. All of which gets back to my dummy theory of why certificates work. People who currently pursue Perl in the absence of a certification program, are a much more motivated group than what will results when the masses seek out a coveted certificate... but are not any more likely to be hired and asked to use their Perl skills to build the next system at XYZ Company because of their superior motivation and expertise. They will more than likely be hired because the manager knows they have C++ or Java skills - and they will use their Perl skills surreptitiously or after the fact (hiring). As I said, the genius in the use of Perl will not improve via certificates, even though the skills will be formally taught to a much larger body of people. Certification will however allow Perl's possible use to greatly broaden, and allow the next crop of Perl converts more latitude and leverage to apply their Pearly skills. This will not directly benefit, and will probably not motivate the current Perl gurus unless they get involved with the certification process, become managers of large Perl programs needing to hire Perl programmers, or obtain certification themselves - which is a bit demeaning since it will not distinguish the quality of the current batch from that of the putative future batch. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
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. 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. Would you rather go through the trouble of taking a test to keep programming in perl? Or would you rather there be no perl jobs at all? The number of perl jobs is one metric, but certainly not the only one, and definitely not the most important one. At the end of the day, all that matters is can you get the job done? Maybe that was the problem you are trying to solve. The problem I was trying to solve was how do you get wider acceptance of perl? You are committing an oversimplification here with the assumption that the best language will be picked for the job, when the reality is that the choice of language isn't always in the hands of the low level programmers. A project is being started. Perl would solve the problem nicely. The manager/boss/CEO doesn't want perl, and instead wants language X. The problem I'm trying to solve is this: How do you get teh manager to approve that the project be designed around perl? You over-simplify that getting the job done will naturally lead to the use of perl in this situation. If you just provide the technical reasons for perl, they'll just think like a programmer and pick perl. They won't. What programmers fail to grasp is that there are peopel with decision-making power who don't make their decisions fully informed of all the technical aspects of the problem. Not every manager selects teh language that will get the job done, some wil pick a language that they are familiar with. Some will pick a language because they believe the hype that it will solve all their problems. we spent a ton of money recently purchasing licenses for a hardware verification language, but none of teh project schedules have time to switch over, none of the future projects will have time to pre-pend training on this language, and pre-pend the time it will take to convert. every project will use teh previous testbench as is. So those licenses were a waste. But no one asked the engineers in the trenches. This was a decision made by someone at headquarters on the other side of teh country. Your solution works if you've got a programmer making the decisions. I'm talking about a situation where a non-programmer is making the decisions. And in those situations, certification is something that a non-programmer might use to base their decision. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:16 -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: The number of Perl job openings today, during the boom, or during the bust is largely irrelevant. Java was supposed to be the programming languages to end all programming languages. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. Interestingly, the whole Java community seems to be slowly awaking from it's overcomplexification of programming, and developing lightweight systems (the kind of stuff that's natural to write with Perl). And Perl certainly is also not the end all and be all of programming languages. Over time, we've seen legacy systems ditched for Perl reimplementations, and Perl systems ditched for PHP, Java, C#, C, and other reimplementations. It's all cyclical. If Perl makes it easy to solve problems, it'll win. If not, it deserves a lesser status. Same as any other technology from Assembly Language to Z-machines. This is also a gross over-simplification, and quite naive IMHO. Although it a great geek ideal that the best tech will always win in the end, it just isn't so. Sure, it makes a difference, but my observation is that that just isn't the only factor. Maybe not even the biggest. Most of the arguments I'm seeing against certification seem to me to smack of elitism. PHB's unfortunately don't usually make decisions primarily on real technical merit. They only know oversimplified catch phrases about languages, and make many decisions based on the cover-my-ass principle of middle management. I've had a number of my own battles with this type of manager, who would choose to hire two Java programmers and spend six months developing a web site for loading and accessing some basic data that could have been done by just one Perl programmer, probably in a month or two less. They made that decision because it was safer, because they had a head full of negative myth's about Perl. THAT is why some of us are considering certification. Not because it will make Perl better, or guarantee good programmers, but because it will give PHB's something to hold on to. Look Perl has matured, it has coding standards now, there is a certification program. Maybe you care most if that's all bullshit. I certainly wouldn't blame you or say that it's not. I wish we lived in that ideal world where the best tech always wins on pure merit alone. But we don't. I'm not interested in going out and shouting from rooftops how cool Perl is. It would likely hurt more than help. I am interested in discussing ways we can increase exposure in a way that does not alienate the market, ways to increase the acceptability of Perl as a possible solution the those decision makers who don't really know squat about Perl. If you have other suggestions on how we might do that, I'd love to hear them. -- Sean Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Feb 28, 2005, at 11:18 AM, James Linden Rose, III wrote: they could then use their certified credentials to suggest Perl for real world problem solving. How about an intermediate step: self-testing. For example, one of the non-corporate Perl sites could set up a free automated test. Users would be challenged to write, debug and execute scripts which would be required to produce a certain tangible result from randomly generated source data. There would be no requirement to memorize the language, only to be able to use it to get things done. The test could set a time limit as a measure of productivity, but otherwise it would be a matter of Can you get the job done? As arrows are notched, I'll attempt to pre-empt with a few stabs: Security. What sort of environment could possibly allow anonymous users to execute arbitrary code... safely? Hmm I don't dare answer, yet. Scoring. Is it possible to automatically score answers? Yes. Perl excels at pattern matching, and as long as the nature of the required product is clearly defined, it should be possible to match all correct answers. But are these the kind of products which indicate aptitude? Yes, basic aptitude, at the very least. A little creativity could produce a graduated test suite, with some real puzzlers at the top that penalize inefficient code (simply by chewing up execution time). (Security precaution: time out). Granted, the ability to write a 100-line script does not indicate an ability to assess client needs, model object relationships, communicate with other people, understand and conform to workflow procedures, etc. But most of that stuff is beyond the scope of certification, anyway. Applicability of results. So you scored a 97. So what? Are going to tell a prospective employer that you attained friar level at perl-test.org? This is why I'm calling it an intermediate step. An objective of self-testing would be to encourage Perl students and casual users (and, eventually, working Perl programmers) to get some standardized feedback on their skills. It encourages improvement and can provide a basic vocabulary for assessing one's own skills: So far I've passed the basic perl, references and OO perl tests. But I stumbled a bit on IPC. Something like that... I think a lot of people would rather be clear on what-they-know-versus-don't-know than just shrug and say they know some Perl. Administration. Who writes the tests? I think most of us are chaffing at the idea that a corporation or other self-interested party would come to control Perl certification. There could be a sort of loosely knit self-selecting group of Perl gurus who volunteer to write and maintain the tests. Something short of a wiki, but not by too much. Cheating. You get some code from a buddy and ace the test. Who cares? This is self-testing. Caveat emptor. Extension. If this is intermediate, what's the next step and how do we get there from here? Zillions of open-source software products have been adopted by business despite the lack of a profit motive on the part of their creators and maintainers. If it's useful and used, it will evolve and set a standard. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
If I could write standalone programs for windows in perl, and be able to share those programs with my non-perl collegues at work without over head of them having to install perl separately, would work wonders for general acceptance of the language. I understand that I can bundled perl itself as an executable. But the WYSIWYG IDE and easy to use executables just seem to make the language more palatable for knowledgeable, non-technical users. If you're looking to target win32 specifically, Win32::GUI using the GUI Loft as a wysiwig solution can be nice. (http://www.bahnhof.se/~johanl/perl/Loft/) Distributing standalone binaries is not as easy, but it is possible using PAR, etc. They are slow to start up the first time as it explodes the archive to the cache, but afterwards are quite snappy. The GUI Loft author is also very responsive to queries and issues. andy ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
From: James Linden Rose, III [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:42:06 PM US/Eastern To: Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Adam Turoff wrote: 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. I don't believe in this perspective. Why would anyone be rabidly anti-certification? That seems terribly irrational. I would call such a person a certifiphobe to his face. How does one person's certification offend some other person who doesn't believe in it? Take their talents where? Where are they fleeing to? Fleeing from what? The train of logic seems to have episodes of being aeronautical. I understand that some may think certification is a waist of time, but how does that offend or discourage that person from upgrading their module? 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. The point is that Joe Average Manager ISN'T hiring Perl programmers. Only his elitist cousin, the savvy manager is. How does increasing the number of Perl practitioners reduce the potential talent the manager can hire? The same old self-taught, self proclaimed Perl mongers remain in the job pool as before. The wise and technology savvy manager still uses him. The idiot manager who was hiring Java beans now hires the mediocre Perl plebeian. - Certification doesn't _prove_ anything. It's mostly a means to weed out resumes when you have 1000 applicants for one job. When you go to hire Perl programmers it will mean something. As things are, there are lot of people who claim to be able to use Perl who would have trouble with any level task. Besides, there's a simple substitute for certification that is more impressive... which is show me something you've built with Perl. - 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 This is a strawman argument. There is no mass of programmers ready to use Perl because there is no educational forum available to learn and prove that you have learned the language. Would you, without the reward of a college degree, take it upon yourself to study Calculus, Simplex Algorithm, Linear Programming, Statistics - hoping one day somebody would come to the idea of granting you a BS in mathematics, or would you study these fields knowing that you would receive a degree for your efforts that you could then parley into a job? Without the promise your certificate holds most would not embark on the course of formal study. - there is no demonstrable evidence that there is a pool of employers that do not use Perl simply because there are no certified applicants I have personal experience that leads me to believe the contrary. Besides, the non-savvy manager is going to ask his certified employee for an opinion on what a project should be coded in - and at this time, that employee is not a Perl monger. Perl is at best viewed as a hobby without the magic credentials, in the same way you would be viewed as a smart guy who is nevertheless still too risky to hire if you sat in the library reading for 4 years outside the context of a degree granting institution. This, right or wrong, is just the reality of how our world works, and ignoring this only hurts Perl. - there is no demonstrable evidence that simply offering certification will answer the questions hiring managers will ask But at least the Perl guy will get his chance to field the question. - Many Perl trainers are vehemently anti-certification. A certification without a supporting training curriculum is dead in the water. I agree. A Perl certificate should come along with a corresponding but optional educational package. Perhaps the certificate can even come with a version number so that later numbers are more valuable than older ones... keep the certification and education constantly improving. - 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. Don't follow how the logjam is created or important. Why
RE: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
From: James Linden Rose, III Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl From: James Linden Rose, III [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:42:06 PM US/Eastern To: Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Adam Turoff wrote: 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. I don't believe in this perspective. Why would anyone be rabidly anti-certification? That seems terribly irrational. I would call such a person a certifiphobe to his face. How does one person's certification offend some other person who doesn't believe in it? Take their talents where? Where are they fleeing to? Fleeing from what? The train of logic seems to have episodes of being aeronautical. I understand that some may think certification is a waist of time, but how does that offend or discourage that person from upgrading their module? I am anti-certification. Why? To put it extremely bluntly: certifications are socialist. People who believe in certifications have the same naïf mentality as people who believe in socialism. In theory, certifications would be granted to people upon their demonstration that they understood the material covered by the certification. And, in theory, a high school diploma indicates that a person is able to read and write. In reality, certifications would be given to people who paid for them, regardless of what they know. The hiring practices of companies would require that the certification be held, thus requiring that the job candidates pay whatever fee the certifying authority wishes to charge. For a small bribe, the person administering the test would provide the candidate with the answers. With the certification being the key to better employment, the bribe would be a small price for the candidate to pay. Deciding not to hire a person who holds certifications becomes hard to justify. Firing a person for incompetence would become even more problematic, as their holding of a certification would be considered proof of their competence. The job market moves, to a small or large degree, towards a static pool of incompetent criminals who cannot be fired and cannot contribute. What problem are you trying to solve? By what theory? With what experience? -- John Redford ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 07:41 PM, Ben Tilly wrote: What don't you believe? That there are rabidly anti-certification people? That many prominent Perl programmers are among them? If you doubt that, then I'll call you reality-challenged to your face and point you in the general direction of Randal Schwartz. For a sample of what they think and why they think that, read http://use.perl.org/articles/04/01/10/0055227.shtml?tid=9. Hmm. That page also links to the OSCON 2003 Panel Discussion on Perl Certification which voted 100 to 7 in favor of certification. That's not exactly a bifurcation of the community, nor is the appellation many appropriate. A tyranny of the minority perhaps. Mr. Shwartz is either one of the 7 or a compatriot of like mind. He states an opinion that Certification is an artificial incline, usually created by those who stand the most to profit from it. After the initial sunk cost of getting employers to believe in this artificial slope, such a corporation then gets to sit back and rake in dough based on the now artificially created demand for certifications and certification support (trainings, books, infrastructure, and so on). I use the Shwartzian transformation all the time... never quite understood it, but use it like mad, so Randal's Perl credentials are not in question. However Mr. Shwartz's model of the problem does not reflect majority opinion with respect to the breadth of the issue, (especially as it seems to be peppered with idealism and anti-capitalism). His arguments strike me more as the ideology of the status quo, and not as a practical approach to Perl's future. (The Perl that was and that might have been). Furthermore, he is certainly not rabid. Miffed perhaps, but not the extremely emotive. Supporters of certification on the OSCON Vote on Perl Certification include Damian Conway, Nathan Torkington, and Tim Wilde. Speaking personally, what I most dislike about the idea of certifications is the likelyhood that I'd be pushed to waste time and money demonstrating that I know Perl. My time and my money. (Why should an employer who knows that they hired an expert wish to invest their money into enabling me to prove my competence to others?) This is like which came first, the chicken or the egg?. It sounds like you don't want to loose a job opportunity to some newbie certificate wielding neophyte because you didn't want to pay for the certificate and don't want to be hassled with some stupid test when you already know your stuff. Hence, you think that your best interest is served by opposing Certification. But that doesn't change the fact that Certification will open doors for Perl to be used much more widely, and will create much more commercial opportunity. Its like a mercantilist standing in the way of free trade. What is in this picture for me? Now you touch on my early point. A certification that has very prominent and vocal opponents within the community is likely to have an uphill battle to acceptance. A certification that didn't have enough support for people to learn what they need to pass it is going to find that the hill is looking more like a cliff. Eh, let us return to my earlier point... a prominent and vocal MINORITY. Universities are not supposed to be in the business of vocational training. Some academics take that very seriously. MIT's charter requires the school to impart practical real-world knowledge. Carnegie-Mellon was founded to give its students skills useful to industry. Nobody challenges their academic credentials - especially not computer scientists. I don't see that learning Perl is either vo-tech, or other-worldly. I consider it more likely that the certification process will open divides within the community that leave less energy for people to support Perl. The mechanism of this divide is? Tectonic plates comprised of hardened opinions sliding away from each other? And here we see another major pitfall. Perl is used for a lot of different things. Perl tends to be good glue. Which means that you need to understand the things that you're trying to glue together. It will be difficult to impossible to provide a single curriculum that addresses all of the different needs to be useful everywhere from mod_perl to database processing to bioinformatics to system administration. Which of the following topics should be in a certification? In what depth? - OO support - Templating tools (Mason, Template::Toolkit, etc) - database interfaces - XML manipulation tools - Graphics libraries - How to write XS interfaces - interprocess communication - The Win32 API - Complex regular expressions Every one of these matters a lot to a segment of the community. None of them matter to everyone. I'd suspect that few people actually need to understand 2/3 of these topics. Most probably only need to know half of them. But different people need to know different halves. No simple
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 08:03 PM, John Redford wrote: I am anti-certification. Why? To put it extremely bluntly: certifications are socialist. People who believe in certifications have the same naïf mentality as people who believe in socialism. This sounds like an opinion that's going to be dead center, focused on target right from the outset. In theory, certifications would be granted to people upon their demonstration that they understood the material covered by the certification. And, in theory, a high school diploma indicates that a person is able to read and write. You're of course correct... and we should all band together to eliminate high school diplomas. In reality, certifications would be given to people who paid for them, regardless of what they know. I got my diploma because my teachers were all socialists. I tried to bribe them, but they said Mao's Little Red Book forbade it. So I promised not to make higher grades than any of my other classmates, and I was the darling of the class from thereon out. The hiring practices of companies would require that the certification be held, thus requiring that the job candidates pay whatever fee the certifying authority wishes to charge. For a small bribe, the person administering the test would provide the candidate with the answers. With the certification being the key to better employment, the bribe would be a small price for the candidate to pay. I wonder if that's how my sister's surgeon got his medical license? Deciding not to hire a person who holds certifications becomes hard to justify. Class Action Suit: Did you have a programming certification, interview for a job, and were not hired? We may be able to get money for YOU. Call Edgar Snyder at 1.800... Firing a person for incompetence would become even more problematic, as their holding of a certification would be considered proof of their competence. This is of course, predicated on the fact that the employee is incompetent because he bribed his instructor. The job market moves, to a small or large degree, towards a static pool of incompetent criminals who cannot be fired and cannot contribute. Precisely what Java is, and why we have to save the world from the scourge of socialism. What problem are you trying to solve? By what theory? With what experience? I'm trying to prevent reactionary agents of Java from infiltrating the Perl Mongers. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:40:10PM -0500, Greg London wrote: My worst case scenario assumed that programmers knew that perl was the best language for the job at hand. So, your analysis is limited to only those who accept that Perl is the best language for the job? Hm My point remains: if you see _one_ worst case scenario (namely that some programmers get their managers to pay for certs) then you are ignoring a good deal of the issue. There are lots of ways this whole process can negatively impact Perl as a community. I raised a few of them. There are others. Some of those points are admittedly weak. Some of the points I raised cut to the core of the issue. There are a lot of other issues (both pro- and con-) that haven't been raised in this particular thread, but have been discussed (ad nauseum) over the last ~decade. Forgive me if I didn't summarize all of them today. 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. Fair point. Let me say my peace with this: Perl Certification is a notoriously slippery permathread. All anyone has offered to date is annecdotal evidence on one side or another, tied together with a heavy dose of rhetoric (weak, strong, or both). And, yes, I plead guilty to that myself. In all of the discussions I've seen, all of the points raised in favor of certification boil down to this: If we had Perl certification, we would get benefits X, Y and Z. The crux of the problem, is that these questions aren't getting answered: - Can we create a certification that will deliver benefits X, Y and Z? - Is certification a necessary precondition for X, Y and Z? - Aren't problems X', Y' and Z' really caused by something else, not the lack of certification? - Are X, Y and Z important? Desirable? Achievable? - Shouldn't we really be focusing on A, B and C instead? Z. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:01:46PM -0500, Sean Quinlan wrote: The last time Perl had an upsurge in popularity, it was because Perl solved a new class of problem better than anything else. Might I suggest that the best way to increase adoption is to learn from our past successes instead of admiring the green fields in Redmond or Santa Clara? What can we learn from our past successes that will help future success? What new problems are there that Perl might be able to be a better solution for? You mention making mod_perl easier to manage (maybe we should aim down the road a bit though at mod_parrot?) - what other areas might increase Perl's usefulness? I'll be silent on mod_perl, parrot and web stuff. When CGI took off, Perl was the first tool to grab because CGI was a text problem, and Perl is great for slinging text. The area where I see a lot of growth is in testing. I just got finished writing a column for login about writing a couple of scripts to write a few hundred thousand regression tests. (No joke.) Perl's great for that, because testing requires three basic things: - a solid test framework (Test::More) - text munging (um, tr///) - glue into everything (DBI, Mech, XML, SOAP, REST, MD5, ) And if you want to run your test suite from the web, it's not like you don't have options. :-) ob-perl-is-great I don't know about anyone else, but every time I look at macros in Lisp, the backquotes and quasiquotation really knots my brain. But in Perl, writing code that generates code is much easier to comprehend: print $test EOT; use Test::More qw(no_plan); use LWP::Simple; my \$page = get($url); is (length(\$page) 1024, Page is longer than 1K); ... EOT Let's see. Where are the variables that are expanded _now_, and where are the variables that are being dropped into the generated code? :-) /ob-perl-is-great Z. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 10:27 -0500, Ian Langworth wrote: On 27.Feb.2005 10:14AM -0500, Greg London wrote: When IS perl 6 going to be ready, anyway? Christmas. All I want for Christmas is my ... ;) -- Sean Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
Have any great advances been made with a perl gui which can be used on multiple platforms? I have to say, I just wrote my first ASP.NET application in C# over the last 3 weeks, and while I had many complaints on having to write several lines of code to accomplish what I could have in 1 line of perl, as well as shortcuts that I could have taken in perl which don't even seem to exist in C#, I must say that I actually enjoyed the WYSIWYG editor. If I could write standalone programs for windows in perl, and be able to share those programs with my non-perl collegues at work without over head of them having to install perl separately, would work wonders for general acceptance of the language. I understand that I can bundled perl itself as an executable. But the WYSIWYG IDE and easy to use executables just seem to make the language more palatable for knowledgeable, non-technical users. -John On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:18:54 -0500, Bogart Salzberg wrote: On Feb 25, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: Ideas? How about an alliance with Apple? Ditch AppleScript and replace it with Perl, marry Perl to a GUI and turn Mac users into Perl-hacking sysadmins. Does anyone know of a good book on database theory? Really. Bogart ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
JT == John Tsangaris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JT Have any great advances been made with a perl gui which can be JT used on multiple platforms? I have to say, I just wrote my first JT ASP.NET application in C# over the last 3 weeks, and while I had JT many complaints on having to write several lines of code to JT accomplish what I could have in 1 line of perl, as well as JT shortcuts that I could have taken in perl which don't even seem to JT exist in C#, I must say that I actually enjoyed the WYSIWYG JT editor. JT If I could write standalone programs for windows in perl, and be JT able to share those programs with my non-perl collegues at work JT without over head of them having to install perl separately, would JT work wonders for general acceptance of the language. I understand JT that I can bundled perl itself as an executable. But the WYSIWYG JT IDE and easy to use executables just seem to make the language JT more palatable for knowledgeable, non-technical users. there are several cross platform gui libs for perl. the ones that come to mind are perl/tk, wx (was wxwindows) and perl/qt. i think perl/gtk is also around. and there is at least one gui editor called glade and i think there are others. you just have to look around cpan and the net for these. they don't come with perl nor are there one primary standard way (timtowtdi as always). then you can have your eyecandy and such while also using perl. uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 10:28 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: JT If I could write standalone programs for windows in perl, and be JT able to share those programs with my non-perl collegues at work JT without over head of them having to install perl separately, would JT work wonders for general acceptance of the language. I understand JT that I can bundled perl itself as an executable. But the WYSIWYG JT IDE and easy to use executables just seem to make the language JT more palatable for knowledgeable, non-technical users. there are several cross platform gui libs for perl. the ones that come to mind are perl/tk, wx (was wxwindows) and perl/qt. i think perl/gtk is also around. and there is at least one gui editor called glade and i think there are others. you just have to look around cpan and the net for these. they don't come with perl nor are there one primary standard way (timtowtdi as always). then you can have your eyecandy and such while also using perl. The windows libs for Qt 4 ( http://www.trolltech.com/ ) are now free for open source projects. The Qt development tools came with my SuSE dist and I've played with them some. You can assemble all the GUI parts in the Qt builder and then execute a script that converts the Qt project to Perl modules which was really nice. And Mandrake Linux has been using Perl with the Gtk binding to make a lot of their administrative tools. There's an article about it on www.perl.com. GL -- Sean Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Feb 25, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: True programmers aren't the ones we need to tell about Perl. I meant budding web programmers. Are these true programmers? I hope so. Web scripter just doesn't sound as good. It's the programmer's BOSS, and their boss' boss. These are the people who do not always see the ways in which things are done and therefore do not see the elegance and necessity of Perl. Yes. Good Point. Perl doesn't have 'buzz', but it does have 'kinship ties', in the anthropological sense, that could prevent it from being falsely accused of witchcraft and then speared to death, or the like. Perl has good kinship ties because it plays well with others. But too many people, as you said, have simply never tried it. If it becomes more of a web programming staple, there will be more people to stand up for it when the high priest points his finger. The other problem is that JavaScript is a client-side language. Which means that people can see/steal JavaScript code more easily than Perl code. Yes, JavaScript has its niche. It's like the smelly, grimy village idiot who tends the pigs: obnoxious but indispensable. Perl would settle for just being indispensable. Perl doesn't NEED a niche, but it might benefit from finding one on the desktop. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
True programmers aren't the ones we need to tell about Perl. I meant budding web programmers. Are these true programmers? I hope so. Web scripter just doesn't sound as good. We'll call them true programmer's in training. ;) But honestly, MOST true programmers have already heard about Perl, and know it's value. Some will still like Java more, or simply enjoy programming other languages more. But they KNOW about Perl, and they know of its strengths. As far as file/text parsing there really isn't much better out there. Really, if new web programmers want to do some sort of online form to do something they will learn about Perl. I am less worried about convincing new programmers as I am convincing the manegerials out there. The other problem is that JavaScript is a client-side language. Which means that people can see/steal JavaScript code more easily than Perl code. Yes, JavaScript has its niche. It's like the smelly, grimy village idiot who tends the pigs: obnoxious but indispensable. Perl would settle for just being indispensable. Perl doesn't NEED a niche, but it might benefit from finding one on the desktop. I think part of the problem is that it is an open source system that doesn't have a fund for advertising. I think if we simply saw some commercials on tv talking about Perl, or telling about all it's success stories. Heck even if they're just like the Intel commercials simply saying Yeah, here we are. We're Perl. We're cool. Yeah, so like us. It wouldn't take many to make a difference. But don't get me wrong, any new uses/implementations we can think of for Perl, the better. --Alex ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Friday, February 25, 2005, at 03:04 PM, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: I think part of the problem is that it is an open source system that doesn't have a fund for advertising. I think if we simply saw some commercials on tv talking about Perl, or telling about all it's success stories. Heck even if they're just like the Intel commercials simply saying Yeah, here we are. We're Perl. We're cool. Yeah, so like us. It wouldn't take many to make a difference. Perl isn't completely without commercial allies. Being the dominant publisher of Perl related texts, it has certainly been in O'Reily's interest to promote its use. That aside, over the last 10 years, the number of shared CGI scripts written in perl and available to the web developing community is vast. I'm sure it dwarfs all other languages. What Perl is really lacking is a widely recognized, widely accessible certification program. When you hire Java programmers they walk in the door with papers proving that somebody said they know what they're doing. Perl is generally practiced outside this whole vetting process. That makes less technically experienced bosses woozy with fear. You know you're a genius with Perl, but no 3rd party has printed up a certificate telling your employer this. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
What Perl is really lacking is a widely recognized, widely accessible certification program. Well, now that you've identified the need, I'll be selling certificates at the next monger meeting. The color-by-number version will be available for entry-level programmers with limited budgets. The gold-foil embossed certificate with authentic oak frame will be available for programmers with larger training budgets. Greg Dogbert School of Certification London ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:51:46 -0500, James Linden Rose, III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, February 25, 2005, at 03:04 PM, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: I think part of the problem is that it is an open source system that doesn't have a fund for advertising. I think if we simply saw some commercials on tv talking about Perl, or telling about all it's success stories. Heck even if they're just like the Intel commercials simply saying Yeah, here we are. We're Perl. We're cool. Yeah, so like us. It wouldn't take many to make a difference. /me thinks of all of the dot coms who had advertising policies that resembled that. All failed of course, because they were wrong... Perl isn't completely without commercial allies. Being the dominant publisher of Perl related texts, it has certainly been in O'Reily's interest to promote its use. That aside, over the last 10 years, the number of shared CGI scripts written in perl and available to the web developing community is vast. I'm sure it dwarfs all other languages. I'm not sure that what is available in Perl dwarfs what is available in PHP. Furthermore shared CGI scripts tend to be truly awful. (There are, admittedly, some exceptions.) What Perl is really lacking is a widely recognized, widely accessible certification program. When you hire Java programmers they walk in the door with papers proving that somebody said they know what they're doing. Perl is generally practiced outside this whole vetting process. Welcome to the routine debate about whether Perl should have a certification program. You're free to start one, but you'll have a lot of trouble getting prominent people to sign on. That makes less technically experienced bosses woozy with fear. You know you're a genius with Perl, but no 3rd party has printed up a certificate telling your employer this. Actually in my experience the people who are most confident of their abilities tend to be mediocre at best. Top notch people are generally aware of ways that they can be better. (If you don't spend time painfully aware that improvement is needed, then improvement doesn't tend to happen...) Cheers, Ben ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
RE: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
From: Alex Brelsfoard Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl I like this idea. I think Perl certification WOULD make the world happier. Then again, I like Greg's idea. Think maybe some of us PerlMongers could get together and actually start up a real Perl certification program? Perl's greatest strength, the open, informal, approach, is also it's biggest weakness - it's very hard to convince talking heads about something that does not have a formal structure/owner/parent (like Sun is for Java or MS is for Windows related s/w). Most of the managers I know are not really that aware of CPAN or the fact that Apache has something to do with Perl (that is, if they have heard of Apache). I hate certifications of any kind. But to gain some semblance of corporate credibility they might have some value. However, equally important as certifying people, is some way of certifying Perl applications (e.g. Perl Inside, to steal one). Of course, that is applicable to most open source software in general. But if managers can be convinced that there are widely used evaluation criteria for an application they are selling/buying/using internally can go a long way towards buying some credibility. My 2c. -Nilanjan ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
AB == Alex Brelsfoard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AB I like this idea. I think Perl certification WOULD make the world happier. AB Then again, I like Greg's idea. AB Think maybe some of us PerlMongers could get together and actually start AB up a real Perl certification program? oy!! perl cert has been argued at length in many fora with no victor. my sense is the majority don't want it since it will be only used by those who don't know perl :) ever find an MSCE who actually knew something? most certified computer people just pass a test but don't really know the subject. and mangler who hire based on required certs just don't get it and they get what they deserve. setting up a cert group is a major project. note that most certs are sponsored by the corp behind the product and perl doesn't have a corp. or they are crapola ones like brainbench. perl is also too broad and deep to properly create a standardized test. does it cover OO, CGI, CPAN, regexes, data structures, etc and how deep? specific modules (i have seen that and it is very dumb. you can always read the docs if you don't know a module)? i judge a perl (or any coder) by how they think, interact with problems, how they solved problems in the past, etc. this is best done with a general interview and getting them to talk about their past projects. see the depth of their knowledge in their project areas. see if they have the big picture and attention to detail. see how they use their experience and skills to solve the project problems. see how fast they pick up on project info you give them. those are all untestable skills and they are much more important than any rote test. if they have those skills, they can learn what is needed on the job. if all they can do is parrot book learning, then you will get a parrot. uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
I was not aware that so much discussion about Perl certification had already taken place (though it makes sense that is has). It DOES sound like quite a tough pickle. But you have to imagine, if any group of people were to be able to find a way to make a proper certification program, wouldn't it be a PerlMonger group? Though, I do see what you're saying Uri. You can't really look at Perl coding (or other coding) as simply... well... coding. There's a mentality and thought process to make coding be good coding. This DOES make making a good certification program rather difficult. Still, it makes you wonder if it would be possible... --Alex AB == Alex Brelsfoard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AB I like this idea. I think Perl certification WOULD make the world happier. AB Then again, I like Greg's idea. AB Think maybe some of us PerlMongers could get together and actually start AB up a real Perl certification program? oy!! perl cert has been argued at length in many fora with no victor. my sense is the majority don't want it since it will be only used by those who don't know perl :) ever find an MSCE who actually knew something? most certified computer people just pass a test but don't really know the subject. and mangler who hire based on required certs just don't get it and they get what they deserve. setting up a cert group is a major project. note that most certs are sponsored by the corp behind the product and perl doesn't have a corp. or they are crapola ones like brainbench. perl is also too broad and deep to properly create a standardized test. does it cover OO, CGI, CPAN, regexes, data structures, etc and how deep? specific modules (i have seen that and it is very dumb. you can always read the docs if you don't know a module)? i judge a perl (or any coder) by how they think, interact with problems, how they solved problems in the past, etc. this is best done with a general interview and getting them to talk about their past projects. see the depth of their knowledge in their project areas. see if they have the big picture and attention to detail. see how they use their experience and skills to solve the project problems. see how fast they pick up on project info you give them. those are all untestable skills and they are much more important than any rote test. if they have those skills, they can learn what is needed on the job. if all they can do is parrot book learning, then you will get a parrot. uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
So no Perl certification? ;) joking. I'm glad this was discussed though. It's always nice to know that there are other people out there who realize that good coding happens from good general knowledge of programming principles, not knowing all the syntax in a language. Plus I had no idea that Perl certification had been thought of/attempted before. Truly, I was simply looking for a way to advertise Perl as being something serious in today's technology. Guess it's back to the drawing board. --Alex ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
Truly, I was simply looking for a way to advertise Perl as being something serious in today's technology. Guess it's back to the drawing board. I'm motivated to not let this die at the certification sucks stage, since perl popularity means more money in my pocket (and I'm assuming it is the same for most people on this list). I've recently been moved to C# which was a company decision. The decision makers chose this as they stated they have had a much easier time finding C# developers than Perl developers (their results have apparently come via responses to various local posting methods including perl jobs). And while people can argue that this isn't so, it really was for this one company (and this was mutliple postings over several years). I'm sure I could push back a little, but the general tide seems to be going that way and I know my efforts will be in vain. So... we all know perl can do what other languages can do and sometimes better (in the context of web languages of course). The question is, how to persuade the decision makers to make the right decision. I agree that a nice list of super corporations that use perl would lend some legitimacy to the language, but I don't think that will have the definitive effect we, or at least I, am hoping it will. Sure, certification would probably make executives pay more attention, but as we've seen by many arguments, certification is a waste. It's non-representative of actual skills, corporately biased, not 'monitored' enough, etc. So what to do then? I guess I am not that convinced that certification is such a crap shoot. Of course all these down-sides of certification are there, so is Java really a better language because its supporters were able to come up with certification program and pursuade executives to use the language? I think in talking about certification, the whole purpose gets lost very quickly in the geeks mind of why waste the time if it's a waste of time? The purpose of certification in the context with which it was introduced in this thread is not an added ability for us, the geeks, to judge other geeks to determine if they have met certain spiritual and linguistic criteria. The purpose of said certification was to pursuade executives who make language decisions that perl does have credibility behind it. If all these negative things about perl certification is true, then it is true for all language certification. Yet, someone recently got a job somewhere in this great union, or india, because they had certification. I don't mean to imply that a certificate is the only variable managers evaluate when hiring, but have you noticed that no matter how much more you may know than the kid who just got his Bachelor of Computer Science, unless you have that B.Sc, doors close? So, the Java certified get more jobs than the plain Java knowledgeable. Ok. Therefore we should not have perl certification because, why? The suggestion that we can pick up our certificates at the next meeting may not be far from what is necessary for certification to accomplish the originally proposed goal. I'm not suggesting you pay $5 and pickup your piece of pizza, a coke, and a certificate simply for sitting in on the session. But... it simply feels like people are thinking more like software engineers than executives. If not certification, what else could we do? I am interested in what the more experienced developers have considered to be a better method of increasing perl popularity than certification. Is a group needed specifically for the promotion of perl? Perhaps to raise money through events and such in order to turn around and advertise perl generally? There are dairy farmers who do that. Tourism spots tend to pool money in order to promote general spending in their area. So why not a Chamber of Perl? (I may be joking about the name but not the idea). Is an occasional radio or tv advertisement that bad of an idea that we shut that down too? Advertising works for Java, but it couldn't possibly work for perl, right? Remember, we are not trying to convince the smart people who already know perl is good. Our solid logic proving perl is the best and only choice for all things is in great need of viagra when placed next to the hot look and feel of the advertised or certified languages. If you have seen most executives, they don't drive the logical cars, they drive the hot cars, regardless of how illogical it may be. So let's hear it. Not accepting that perl is doomed to forever be the 'unpopular' choice, I'd like to hear from others ideas that would really work to raise general social/corporate awareness of the language. Sorry... I had some lint in that $.02... but I'm sure you'll understand. :-) -John -John ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
Thanks Greg, Yeah, it's easy to get side-tracked on an issue like this. Fighting for Perl's cause is kind of fresh in my mind these days. Mostly because I feel like I have to _fight_ for it. At least lately. I've been explaining things about Perl to those who know nothing about it and therefore think is is a stupid and useless language (because if it wasn't stupid and useless they would know more about it). ugh. It would just be nice if we could do something to make it a little bit clearer to the mass public the power and importance of Perl. And thus help Mike and Nameless Coporation. Even if we did have a bunch more doofs walking around with useless certificates, at least more people would know about Perl. And then I wouldn't need to explain things so much ;) Again, thanks. --Alex Alex Brelsfoard said: So no Perl certification? Alex, You're argument got derailed by a non-sequitor. Manager Mike works at Nameless Corporation and Mike doesn't want his projects using Perl. Your argument was that if some company provided certification, then Mike might allow Perl on his projects. That may actually be a valid claim/argument. The responses you got against certification were no one who has a certificate knows anything and so on. Nothing to do with whether or not certification will convince Mike to allow perl. Now, once Mike allows perl on the project, if the engineering manager, Eve, then decides to hire only programers with certification, then that's a separate problem. One would assume that Eve would have a slightly better grasp on reality than Mike, and so wouldn't put so much stock in certification to make/break a hiring decision. If Mike does allow perl because of certification and Eve is a smart enough engineer/programmer to know not to put too much stock in certification and simply hires the best programmers, then the worst that will happen is an occaisonal dunderhead will get hired with certification and think he knows everything. But at that point, you as a programmer on the project get to use perl, and you just have to put up with a moron coworker. I've lost count of how many places I've worked, but everywhere I've been, there's been a moron. So it isn't any worse than any other job, except you get to use perl. So, if Certification convinces Mike to allow perl, and Eve isn't an idiot, it's an overall win. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
RE: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
Well just about everything that can be said on this thread has been said, except for this. Google for: perl (certification OR certificate) produces 2170 matches. This matches two phrases. If you remove the quotes, i.e. Google for: perl (certification OR certificate) produces 1.2 million hits. Among them is this, from the Perl Journal http://www.tpj.com/documents/s=1131/sam05040001/letters.htm?temp=NJykmWt Eip which says in part: I was wondering if you knew of anyone that offers a Perl Certification Program? ... At the second O'Reilly Perl conference, Mark-Jason Dominus, Nathan Torkington, and I sold Perl Certificates. You named a title (Perl Monger, Perl Studmuffin, and Perl Sultan were all chosen), and an Official Perl Certification was immediately printed for you to take home and frame. To receive a certificate, you needed to show no qualifications other than the ability to open up your wallet and fork over $2. (This is like other certification programs, but cheaper.) [You can read the rest if you want.] Hopefully helpfully yours, Steve -- Steve TolkinSteve . Tolkin at FMR dot COM 617-563-0516 Fidelity Investments 82 Devonshire St. V4D Boston MA 02109 There is nothing so practical as a good theory. Comments are by me, not Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries or affiliates. ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Feb 25, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: Ideas? How about an alliance with Apple? Ditch AppleScript and replace it with Perl, marry Perl to a GUI and turn Mac users into Perl-hacking sysadmins. Does anyone know of a good book on database theory? Really. Bogart ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 16:23 -0500, Andres Monroy-Hernandez wrote: If any, I think O'Reilly should be the issuer of those certificates. I think it would be a nice thing to have for marketing purposes as others have pointed out. Maybe. If not the issuer I'd like to involve them. Not just for advice about certifications in general and perhaps start-up assistance, but if they don't issue it, they should certainly get the opportunity to publish a certification training book as soon as we're up and running! ;) Another idea would be to use the PerlMonks ranking number as certificates :-) Nah. I'm a monk now, mostly just for being a regular lurker. :) -- Sean Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 15:07 -0600, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: I like this idea. I think Perl certification WOULD make the world happier. Then again, I like Greg's idea. Think maybe some of us PerlMongers could get together and actually start up a real Perl certification program? I don't see why not. However for acceptance by PHB's it would need to be a bit more ... organized than just being a casual mongers program. But I think the Perl mongers, YAS/Perl Foundation, O'Reily, and perhaps others should be involved if possible, at least in an advisory role. The certification should definitely meet our high standards! ;) Sexy, sexy LAMP certification? :P I think this is an excellent addition to the planned topic's for our next tech meeting. Which we still haven't scheduled. It looks like the second Tuesday wont actually be a conflict for me through the spring if people want to stick to that schedule? -- Sean Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
BT == Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT O'Reilly is too aware of how influential people in the community BT feel about certification to make that kind of mistake. Else they BT would have done it a long time ago. o'reilly would never want to get into that. it just doesn't make sense. what other publisher or media company does certification? BT If you really want a certificate, go to http://brainbench.com/ and BT take their test. blecch. as i said, that test is worthless. i took it when it was free and without trying got a very high score. as i said elsewhere they even ask module questions (like how to use CGI.pm) which makes no sense. plenty of perl progammers have never written a cgi script in their lives. uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:18:54 -0500, Bogart Salzberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 25, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: Ideas? How about an alliance with Apple? Ditch AppleScript and replace it with Perl, marry Perl to a GUI and turn Mac users into Perl-hacking sysadmins. Does anyone know of a good book on database theory? Really. Joe Celko is well-regarded and has several books aimed at programmers at different levels. Pick one that you feel might be at your level. If you're using Oracle, I'll highly recommend anything that you feel is applicable by Thomas Kyte. (Many of his books are intended for DBAs, you probably don't want those.) Speaking personally, I don't have a ton of book recommends because I did most of my learning about SQL from co-workers. I suspect that many Perl programmers who use databases are in the same boat, which may be why you have been getting so few responses to that request. Cheers, Ben ___ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
