[Chicago] Python jobs -- Try number 2
Kenneth P. Stox
ken at stox.org
Wed Aug 22 03:36:58 CEST 2007
Well, since I seem to have taken the lead in this matter, I will reply.
Doug, please do not take my words as law in this matter, I am only
attempting to reflect what I believe to be in the best interests of the
group. As usual, if anyone disagrees, please pipe up!
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:12 -0500, Pratt, Doug wrote:
> I'm posting 2 positions that have come in this week that specifically
> mention Python. They are not Python developer jobs per se. If you're
> interested check them out.
I, for one don't see any problem with jobs that may involve python, but
are not python centric. As long as python is an positive attribute,
looks fine by me.
> I wanted to add my 2 cents worth to the discussion of growing the use
> of Python in development environments around Chicago. I can only speak
> to my experience of our clients. They are typically smaller companies
> who are more adapable than usual. They tend to be open to innovations
^^^^^^^^ Hmmm, you might want to get a mail client with a
working spell checker. There are some fine open source ones we can
recommend. ( Sorry, just ribbing you, I couldn't resist )
> that improve productivity and the final results. They would seem to
> be prime candidates for encouraging the use of Python. Would it be
> acceptable to post positions which might be open to using Python but
> don't mention it because they haven't experienced the advantages it
Umm, in a word, NO! That is one darn slippery slope that you propose. I
might start programming in Visual Basic tomorrow. To keep things honest,
I would say that the word "python" has got to be in the listing, at the
> What it takes is for Python advocates to work in their world and to
> open their minds to what's possible.
Let me guess, Hal sent you to Dale Carnegie. Nice try, though.
BTW, of the two openings you enclosed, I think they both meet the
minimum acceptable criteria. Python is purely optional, and in neither
job is python a requirement, but is mentioned. I think they represent a
good lower limit.
ken at stox.org
Disclaimer: Although my words might accidentally reflect those of the
group, anybody who thinks I actually speak for the group probably needs
their head examined.
More information about the Chicago