Python Advocacy and "hard" data

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

Iwan van der Kleyn <none at none.com> wrote previously:
|In other words, what I need is not apocryphal stories from the converted
|but "objective" (haha) reports from institutions like Gartner or
|statements from universitites or companies praising Python's qualities.

I would consider anything from Gartner to be worth far less than the
paper it is printed on.  Their "methodology" is to find a client with
$$$ who wants particular results, then deliver what their paying client
wants.  As a cover, Gartner does occassionally measure something or
survey some people... but only after *very* carefully pre-selecting the
measurement to guarantee the appearance of a desired outcome.

"Do you trust a server platform written by one of the highest-valued
corporations listed on the NYSE, or one written by a ragtag bunch of
college kids with poor grooming habits?"  That sort of thing.

In a University context, direct comparison of technologies is rather
uncommon.  CS professors are more interested in researching the
foundation of techniques, for the most part, than in social science
research on implementations (I don't criticize them here... were I
teaching CS, I would feel the same way).  A notable exception is Lutz
Prechelt's study:

    http://www.ipd.uka.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprt_computer2000.pdf

Yours, Lulu...

--
    _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
   _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[mertz at gnosis.cx]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/