Comment Re:I doubt that Java will succeed. (Score 1) 461
Paul Prescod wrote:
> When Java came out I was an early adopter because sometimes somebody needs to move beyond what "everyone else is doing" (which was C/C++). I've since moved on to Python.
You were an early adopter of Java and have since moved on to Python?
Look at this posting from November 5, 1998:
Well, your 1998 prediction didn't come true by 2001, and it still hasn't come true. The "pack" hasn't chosen Python and neither have I. Are you going to admit you were wrong? My guess would be no. Maybe you'll argue that the "pack" actually has chosen Python. And I'll admit that Python has had a few successes, like BitTorrent. I'll even admit that the language has some nice characteristics. But, chosen by the "pack?" No.
I'd say that if the "pack" is starting to move onto something else, that something else is PHP.
In 1998, you mentioned that you may be on to something new by 2001. Well, on to something new yet, in 2003? Just asking - I'm not assuming what your answer will be.
> When Java came out I was an early adopter because sometimes somebody needs to move beyond what "everyone else is doing" (which was C/C++). I've since moved on to Python.
You were an early adopter of Java and have since moved on to Python?
Look at this posting from November 5, 1998:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pack+hasn%27t+ch osen+Python+three+years&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF- 8&selm=36427906.88E410EE%40monmouth.com&rnum=1
Posting by Ted Shieh, replying to assertions by Paul Prescod.
Paul Prescod wrote:
> the pack hasn't chosen Python yet. Three years from now, they
> will and you will and I may be on to something new.
Well, do you want to bet? How about this, we'll count how many times Python appears in the want ads vs. Java in the New York Times on the first Thursday in November of 2001?
I think you're wrong, and we won't have to wait until 2001 to verify the truth or falseness of "they will and you will." Just check the want ads in a national newspaper from time to time.
>It makes no sense to go to an *effect* of power when you can go directly
>to the source. Examine the languages, compare the lines of code it
>requires to do various jobs.
You should think a little more before you say "no sense." Here's a link worth visiting:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Progra mming_Languages/
I suppose that if I listen to you, I should ignore how widely each of these languages are used and simply evaluate them all at "the source." Of course, it's going to take me awhile to get through them all; I have to prioritize somehow. I guess I can start with the language called "ABC" (which I had never heard of before, but I guess I shouldn't let that be a factor).
It makes total sense that I would want to consider the more readily measured effect of power. One of effect of power is the popularity, and we can use the numbers next to the links as a kind of Web Popularity. It is biased in favor of Internet-oriented languages, sure, but these numbers are still mostly in line with what you'll see in the want ads (which is something of some importance). Java, C, C++, Perl, and VB all get high numbers and often appear in want ads. ABC, cT, and Cecil get 1's. And I wouldn't be surprised to see other languages not on this list. Should I give ABC and C equal attention? Sure, if I want to quit my job to work on my comparison full-time. Ultimately, most of code because that is what we get paid to do, and it makes a lot of sense that we should pay attention to whether we can get paid to do it now and and in the future.
It makes total sense.
Well, your 1998 prediction didn't come true by 2001, and it still hasn't come true. The "pack" hasn't chosen Python and neither have I. Are you going to admit you were wrong? My guess would be no. Maybe you'll argue that the "pack" actually has chosen Python. And I'll admit that Python has had a few successes, like BitTorrent. I'll even admit that the language has some nice characteristics. But, chosen by the "pack?" No.
I'd say that if the "pack" is starting to move onto something else, that something else is PHP.
In 1998, you mentioned that you may be on to something new by 2001. Well, on to something new yet, in 2003? Just asking - I'm not assuming what your answer will be.
