[encoderer]

I've come to expect hackery from this guys blog.

The truth is that for professional, skilled developers, mastering their Nth language is an increasingly smaller investment compared to their first.

But for people north of HTML coders and south of professionals, they have a lot invested in the scripting skills they've developed and nobody is interested in seeing the value of their investment diminish for a reason like this.

People here always tout PHP's installed-base as a big "plus" for the language. But I think more than that is the mindshare.

[dasil003]

Yeah, the first post I read was the ORM one, which I thought was such an egregious piece of misinformation that I debunked it ad nauseam (http://darwinweb.net/articles/in-defense-of-orms).

Now in this article there's a telling clue to why he thinks writing SQL by hand is better than using any ORM:

> I can knock out a good website in an hour in PHP, and an excellent one in a day or two.

This suggests that he's working primarily on tiny projects. Of course if you are working on tiny projects than an ORM doesn't buy you much. Also, there is perhaps no language suited better to tiny web projects than PHP and I don't see that changing. If you want to make something measurably better than PHP for general purpose web programming you start having to make decisions that developers don't want taken away from them. Rails does what it does by being opinionated, but it works because if the opinions are ill-suited to your project you can still use Sinatra or whatever. If you move too high up the abstraction layer while trying to still serve a wide audience you end up with the kind of morass that is Drupal, where the system can do almost anything adequately, but it doesn't do a great job of anything because of the creaking weight of the infrastructure that attempts to be everything to everyone.

[geebee]

Well, it's always hard to respond to a claim about professional, skilled developers, since a programmer will always be looking up at a group that is more skilled (well, most of us anyway).

But I don't think it's a small investment to learn a language and framework. You can learn the basics of ruby, or python, or Java reasonably quickly if you have a reasonably broad background in programming languages, though even that takes a while.

But the frameworks, those really do take an investment. It takes a real investment of time comfortable with Rails or Django. Not to get the initial site or scaffolding up, but to get comfortable enough that you're no longer stymied when you need to do something non-obvious.

And the Java frameworks, oh jeez. To get all that working takes ages. A dependency injection framework, an MVC framework, an ORM, getting it all to work with Maven or some other build too, sheesh that takes a long time, and there are so many dispiriting little errors to chase down.

Well, maybe there really adept coders just don't have a problem with this, but I have this suspicion that it doesn't come down to being smart. This isn't about mastering some difficult algorithm and then implementing it in python or ruby instead of java. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies.

I remember Ellen Ullman (she wrote "Close to the Machine", a reflection on programming before these types of books were so common) described programmers as "serial monogomists", becoming very loyal to their environments for a while, then abandoning them and finding something new. I remember another line, about how you can be a senior developer in one environment but not even know how to turn the machine on in another.

I'm not saying there aren't people who can switch easily, but I do think it comes at a cost, even for people who are reasonably adept programmers.