anti-anti-hype
a little anti-anti-hype
- published to O'Reilly Ruby Blog on Dec 26, 2005
- voluntarily taken down on Dec 30, 2005
- edited and re-published here on Jan 01, 2006
Steve Yegge
Note: if this article enrages you, please read my follow-up article that explains some of my outrageous comments a bit more gently and thoroughly. Hopefully it shows that I'm not Python-bashing here.
Everyone's buzzing about Bruce Eckel's "anti-hype" article. I hope the irony isn't lost on him.
The thrust of Eckel's article appears to be that hyper-enthusiasm is diminishing the Ruby camp's message, and it's spoiling a good gentleman's argument. Those darn hyper-enthusiasts are focusing relentlessly on how cool Ruby is and how much they like it, when what's really needed here is a balanced, objective, neutral, moderated, standards-based, point-by-point, academic discussion of Python vs. Ruby, in which we can all make well-informed decisions, and may the best language win, as long as it's Python.
Python folks never really did understand marketing.
I'm surprised we need a history lesson here; we've all been through this so many times before. But let's look once again at the basics of language adoption.
First, inferior languages and technologies are just as likely to win. Maybe even more likely, since it takes less time to get them right. Java beat Smalltalk; C++ beat Objective-C; Perl beat Python; VHS beat Beta; the list goes on. Technologies, especially programming languages, do not win on merit. They win on marketing. Begging for fair, unbiased debate is going to get your language left in the dust.
You can market a language by pumping money into a hype machine, the way Sun and IBM did with Java, or Borland did back with Turbo Pascal. It's pretty effective, but prohibitively expensive for most. More commonly, languages are marketed by a small group of influential writers, and the word-of-mouth hyping extends heirarchically down into the workplace, where a bunch of downtrodden programmers wishing they were having more fun stage a coup and start using a new "forbidden" language on the job. Before long, hiring managers start looking for this new language on resumes, which drives book sales, and the reactor suddenly goes supercritical.
Perl's a good example: how did it beat Python? They were around at more or less the same time. Perl might predate Python by a few years, but not enough for it to matter much. Perl captured roughly ten times as many users as Python, and has kept that lead for a decade. How? Perl's success is the result of Larry Wall's brilliant marketing, combined with the backing of a strong publisher in O'Reilly.
"Programming Perl" was a landmark language book: it was chatty, it made you feel welcome, it was funny, and you felt as if Perl had been around forever when you read it; you were just looking at the latest incarnation. Double marketing points there: Perl was hyped as a trustworthy, mature brand name (like Barnes and Noble showing up overnight and claiming they'd been around since 1897 or whatever), combined with that feeling of being new and special. Larry continued his campaigning for years. Perl's ugly deficiencies and confusing complexities were marketed as charming quirks. Perl surrounded you with slogans, jargon, hip stories, big personalities, and most of all, fun. Perl was marketed as fun.
What about Python? Is Python hip, funny, and fun? Not really. The community is serious, earnest, mature, and professional, but they're not much focused on fun, which is an important part of marketing languages.
One could write a fat book about this, but just to give you the flavor, consider what happens when you type "python" at a command prompt. It fires up a little interactive interpreter. At the prompt, if you type "quit", it responds with 'Use Ctrl-D (i.e. EOF) to exit.'
Well that's not very nice, is it? It *knows* you want to quit, even going so far as to call you an EOF, whatever that means. (Yes, you and I both know, but is it really the right thing to show to a beginner? Hardly.) Why didn't it just quit, then?
If you were to bring this issue up on a Python newsgroup at any time in the past 10 years, someone would tersely have instructed you to go look at the FAQ. Or they'd have explained that having 'quit' quit would be a strict violation of the semantics of the REPL, which has no a priori knowledge of English, and as Ctrl-D is universally recognized as the EOF char on most terminal emulators, excepting of course broken ones on win32 and VAX platforms, and the interactive shell's clean design allows the interpreter to treat the input as if it were coming from a file or similar stream, blah Blah BLAH, ergo, the current behavior is correct, quod erat demonstrandum.
Never mind that it's patently obvious that "quit" should just quit the frigging shell, semantics be damned. They don't care a whit, because they're focused on the "right thing" at the expense of the user experience. There's an old adage for this; it's called "missing the forest for the trees."
Of course it's just as difficult to figure out how to exit the Perl shell, if not more so. But if you were to bring it up on a mailing list or newsgroup, some nice Perl person would come along, eager to show you how to add one more snippet of job security to your lineup of Perl folklore, and would spend an hour explaining how cool it is that you can quit the shell with a single keystroke, one that works in other Unix commands as well, and then maybe show you how to hack the Perl binary so that "quit" also exits the shell for you. The difference is huge: both shells have that crappy misfeature, but Python folks will bore you with justifications while the Perl folks excite you with marketing.
Pedantry: it’s just how things work in the Python world. The status quo is always correct by definition. If you don’t like something, you are incorrect. If you want to suggest a change, put in a PEP, Python’s equivalent of Java’s equally glacial JSR process. The Python FAQ goes to great lengths to rationalize a bunch of broken language features. They’re obviously broken if they’re frequently asked questions, but rather than ‘fessing up and saying “we’re planning on fixing this”, they rationalize that the rest of the world just isn’t thinking about the problem correctly. Every once in a while some broken feature is actually fixed (e.g. lexical scoping), and they say they changed it because people were “confused”. Note that Python is never to blame.
In contrast, Matz is possibly Ruby's harshest critic; his presentation "How Ruby Sucks" exposes so many problems with his language that it made my blood run a bit cold. But let's face it: all languages have problems. I much prefer the Ruby crowd's honesty to Python's blaming, hedging and overt rationalization.
As for features, Perl had a very different philosophy from Python: Larry would add in just about any feature anyone asked for. Over time, the Perl language has evolved from a mere kitchen sink into a vast landfill of flotsam and jetsam from other languages. But they never told anyone: "Sorry, you can't do that in Perl." That would have been bad for marketing.
Today, sure, Perl's ugly; it's got generations of cruft, and they've admitted defeat by turning their focus to Perl 6, a complete rewrite. If Perl had started off with a foundation as clean as Ruby's, it wouldn't have had to mutate so horribly to accommodate all its marketing promises, and it'd still be a strong contender today. But now it's finally running out of steam. Larry's magical marketing vapor is wearing off, and people are realizing that Perl's useless toys (references, contexts, typeglobs, ties, etc.) were only fun back when Perl was the fastest way to get things done. In retrospect, the fun part was getting the job done and showing your friends your cool software; only half of Perl's wacky features were helping with that.
So now we have a void. Perl's running out of steam for having too many features; Java's running out of steam for being too bureaucratic. Both are widely beginning to be perceived as offering too much resistance to getting cool software built. This void will be filled by... you guessed it: marketing. Pretty soon everyone (including hiring managers) will see which way the wind is blowing, and one of Malcolm Gladwell's tipping points will happen.
We're in the middle of this tipping-point situation right now. In fact it may have already tipped, with Ruby headed to become the winner, a programming-language force as prominent on resumes and bookshelves as Java is today. This was the entire point of Bruce Tate's book. You can choose to quibble over the details, as Eckel has done, or you can go figure out which language you think is going to be the winner, and get behind marketing it, rather than complaining that other language enthusiasts aren't being fair.
Could Python be the next mega-language? Maybe. It's a pretty good language (not that this really matters much). To succeed, they'd have to get their act together today. Not in a year, or a few months, but today -- and they'd have to realize they're behind already. Ruby's a fine language, sure, but now it has a killer app. Rails has been a huge driving and rallying force behind Ruby adoption. The battleground is the web framework space, and Python's screwing it up badly. There are at least five major Python frameworks that claim to be competing with Rails: Pylons, Django, TurboGears, Zope, and Subway. That's at least three (maybe four) too many. From a marketing perspective, it doesn't actually matter which one is the best, as long as the Python community gets behind one of them and starts hyping it exclusively. If they don't, each one will get 20% of the developers, and none will be able to keep pace with the innovation in Rails.
The current battle may be over web frameworks, but the war is broader than that. Python will have to get serious about marketing, which means finding some influential writers to crank out some hype books in a hurry. Needless to say, they also have to abandon their anti-hype position, or it's a lost cause. Sorry, Bruce. Academic discussions won't get you a million new users. You need faith-based arguments. People have to watch you having fun, and envy you.
My guess is that the Python and Java loyalists will once again miss the forest for the trees. They'll debate my points one by one, and declare victory when they've proven beyond a doubt that I'm mistaken: that marketing doesn't really matter. Or they'll say "gosh, it's not really a war; there's room for all of us", and they'll continue to wonder why the bookshelves at Barnes are filling up with Ruby books.
I won't be paying much attention though, 'cuz Ruby is soooo cool. Did I mention that "quit" exits the shell in Ruby? It does, and so does Ctrl-D. Ruby's da bomb. And Rails? Seriously, you don't know what you're missing. It's awesome. Ruby's dad could totally beat up Python's dad. Check out Why's Poignant Guide if you don't b'lieve me. Ruby's WAY fun -- it's like the only language I want to use these days. It's so easy to learn, too. Not that I'm hyping it or anything. You just can't fake being cool.