How well a PHP or Perl programmer paid comparing to Java

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Market Mutant, Jan 17, 2004.

  1. I just wonder job selections, job openings and salary level of PHP programer
    or Perl programmer comparing to Java programmers.

    Is Java programmer's salary has a minimal of 60K in US? Are there many PHP
    jobs?
     
    Market Mutant, Jan 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Market Mutant

    CountScubula Guest

    "Market Mutant" <> wrote in message
    news:ho3Ob.52244$...
    > I just wonder job selections, job openings and salary level of PHP

    programer
    > or Perl programmer comparing to Java programmers.
    >
    > Is Java programmer's salary has a minimal of 60K in US? Are there many PHP
    > jobs?
    >
    >


    Personaly, I don't see it as high as $60k. Don't get me wrong, there may be
    a Java programmer making that or more. People get paid what thier worth,
    unfortunalty, to any of my companies, Java is worthless. I would rather take
    on two PHP programmers at $30k apiece


    --
    Mike Bradley
    http://www.gzentools.com -- free online php tools
     
    CountScubula, Jan 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. CountScubula wrote:

    > "Market Mutant" <> wrote in message
    > news:ho3Ob.52244$...
    >> I just wonder job selections, job openings and salary level of PHP

    > programer
    >> or Perl programmer comparing to Java programmers.
    >>
    >> Is Java programmer's salary has a minimal of 60K in US? Are there many
    >> PHP jobs?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Personaly, I don't see it as high as $60k. Don't get me wrong, there may
    > be a Java programmer making that or more. People get paid what thier
    > worth, unfortunalty, to any of my companies, Java is worthless. I would
    > rather take on two PHP programmers at $30k apiece
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mike Bradley
    > http://www.gzentools.com -- free online php tools


    I just saw a manager's job in today's (Saturday) edition for the local
    health department. It talked about a "Java, CORBA, N-Tier" architecture. I
    read that as "slow, slower, slowest".

    As someone who has real web-based businesses that needs rapid prototyping, I
    would NEVER consider Java.

    gtoomey
     
    Gregory Toomey, Jan 17, 2004
    #3
  4. CountScubula wrote:
    > I would rather take on two PHP programmers at $30k apiece


    30? Woa!

    Am I glad I'm in Europe where companies tend to pay programmers what
    they're worth...

    Jochen
     
    Jochen Buennagel, Jan 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Market Mutant

    Chung Leong Guest

    PHP is too easy to set up, that's the problem. Any bozo can install it on
    their PC, ticker with it a little bit, then claim 2 years of PHP experience
    on his resume.

    Companies that uses PHP also tend to be smaller and on the stingy side--at
    least here in the States.

    Uzytkownik "Jochen Buennagel" <> napisal w
    wiadomosci news:bubdto$8i8$03$-online.com...
    > CountScubula wrote:
    > > I would rather take on two PHP programmers at $30k apiece

    >
    > 30? Woa!
    >
    > Am I glad I'm in Europe where companies tend to pay programmers what
    > they're worth...
    >
    > Jochen
    >
     
    Chung Leong, Jan 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Market Mutant wrote:
    > I just wonder job selections, job openings and salary level of PHP
    > programer or Perl programmer comparing to Java programmers.
    >
    > Is Java programmer's salary has a minimal of 60K in US? Are there
    > many PHP jobs?


    Sorry for asking a stupid question, but shouldn't a good programmer be able
    to learn a new language within a month or so? Ok, the basics he can learn
    within a week and real proficiency takes somewhat longer, maybe 3-6 months.
    But nevertheless.

    I mean, if you want someone to finish a specific project short term, then
    ok, you hire someone who knows the language that are using already.
    But if you want an employee with a long-term perspective, is his current
    spectrum of programming languages really that important? It gives an
    indication about how capable he may be, but it is one factor among many(!)
    others and not the dominant factor at that.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Jan 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Chung Leong wrote:

    > PHP is too easy to set up, that's the problem. Any bozo can install it on
    > their PC, ticker with it a little bit, then claim 2 years of PHP experience
    > on his resume.


    But he won't make it past the first month if there is anyone watching
    what he does. The next time they hire, they might be more wary (sp?). If
    not, they deserve what they're getting and I wouldn't want to work for
    them anyway, because they won't appreciate my work.

    > Companies that uses PHP also tend to be smaller and on the stingy side--at
    > least here in the States.


    As a freelancer, I usually tell them to hire the highschool kid for
    $10/h. When I call back 2-4 weeks later, most of the time I'll get the
    job for my normal rate, based on their experience.

    Jochen
     
    Jochen Buennagel, Jan 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Market Mutant

    CountScubula Guest

    judge this by how fast you can learn a new spoken laguage as in French,
    German, etc... sure we can learn the words, and I can say "Pick up the
    pencil" but it doesnt become fluent for a while.

    I would not consider learning any language to be done in a month, or 3-6.

    Any programmer that comes at me with that attitude, Well, I will call him,
    dont call me.

    --
    Mike Bradley
    http://www.gzentools.com -- free online php tools
    "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    news:9zdOb.7148$...
    > Market Mutant wrote:
    > > I just wonder job selections, job openings and salary level of PHP
    > > programer or Perl programmer comparing to Java programmers.
    > >
    > > Is Java programmer's salary has a minimal of 60K in US? Are there
    > > many PHP jobs?

    >
    > Sorry for asking a stupid question, but shouldn't a good programmer be

    able
    > to learn a new language within a month or so? Ok, the basics he can learn
    > within a week and real proficiency takes somewhat longer, maybe 3-6

    months.
    > But nevertheless.
    >
    > I mean, if you want someone to finish a specific project short term, then
    > ok, you hire someone who knows the language that are using already.
    > But if you want an employee with a long-term perspective, is his current
    > spectrum of programming languages really that important? It gives an
    > indication about how capable he may be, but it is one factor among many(!)
    > others and not the dominant factor at that.
    >
    > jue
    >
    >
     
    CountScubula, Jan 18, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <9zdOb.7148$>,
    Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    :Sorry for asking a stupid question, but shouldn't a good programmer be able
    :to learn a new language within a month or so? Ok, the basics he can learn
    :within a week and real proficiency takes somewhat longer, maybe 3-6 months.
    :But nevertheless.

    "real proficiency" can take a lot longer than 3-6 months.

    I've been programming in perl for 5+ years, but I don't consider myself
    to be proficient yet. Perl is a moving target, and it is a big
    target; in 3-6 months you probably aren't going to have a chance to
    exercise a wide enough variety of constructs to really be "proficient".

    Similarily, there's a very big difference between learning the
    mechanics of C++ and learning it to the point of proficiency. I have
    a copy of the official C++ ANSI standard, and it is at least 3 inches
    (8 cm) thick of dense reference material. Learning how and -when- to
    use each of those facilities takes more than 3-6 months.

    I do a lot of work these days with Cisco PIX firewalls. PIX has
    configuration commands, but is not "programmable". Learning the basics
    of PIX only takes a couple of hours, but even after 2 1/2 years of
    actively working on PIX and reading (and answering) lots of
    comp.dcom.sys.cisco postings about PIX, I can still only answer
    somewhere around 40% of the questions. There is a combinatorial
    interaction between the features, and there are new features being
    introduced every couple of months.

    If you just want someone who can get the computer to dance a jig,
    then perhaps someone "imported" from another language will do -- but
    to get it to dance *gracefully*, you want experience in that language.
    --
    When your posts are all alone / and a user's on the phone/
    there's one place to check -- / Upstream!
    When you're in a hurry / and propagation is a worry/
    there's a place you can post -- / Upstream!
     
    Walter Roberson, Jan 18, 2004
    #9
  10. CountScubula wrote:
    > judge this by how fast you can learn a new spoken laguage as in French,
    > German, etc... sure we can learn the words, and I can say "Pick up the
    > pencil" but it doesnt become fluent for a while.


    Human languages are far larger and immensely more complex than
    computer languages--as is shown by the fact that computers
    can understand computer languages but not human languages.

    >
    > I would not consider learning any language to be done in a month, or 3-6.
    >
    > Any programmer that comes at me with that attitude, Well, I will call him,
    > dont call me.
    >

    Your loss then. In my opinion, an average new language can be
    learned well in a month of intense study. If the language
    involves a radically different way of expressing a program's
    logic (Prolog, for example), it can be learned in 3-6 months.

    Chris Mattern
     
    Chris Mattern, Jan 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Also sprach Chris Mattern:
    > CountScubula wrote:
    >> judge this by how fast you can learn a new spoken laguage as in French,
    >> German, etc... sure we can learn the words, and I can say "Pick up the
    >> pencil" but it doesnt become fluent for a while.

    >
    > Human languages are far larger and immensely more complex than
    > computer languages--as is shown by the fact that computers
    > can understand computer languages but not human languages.


    However and unlike with programming languages, the parsers and
    interpreters of human languages (namely humans) usually do a good job of
    understanding broken language (both syntactically and semantically
    broken). This is not true for programming languages.

    >> I would not consider learning any language to be done in a month, or 3-6.
    >>
    >> Any programmer that comes at me with that attitude, Well, I will call him,
    >> dont call me.
    >>

    > Your loss then. In my opinion, an average new language can be
    > learned well in a month of intense study. If the language
    > involves a radically different way of expressing a program's
    > logic (Prolog, for example), it can be learned in 3-6 months.


    The issue was proficiency. That's a far taller order than people often
    think [1]. There are languages whose core of features is very thin but which
    require quite a bit of experience. Think of C. I've yet to meet the
    programmer who managed to become proficient in this language within six
    months.

    [1]: The list of requirements is long and goes far beyond knowing the
    language concepts.

    Tassilo
    --
    $_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
    pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
    $_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval
     
    Tassilo v. Parseval, Jan 18, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <bueggh$mob$-Aachen.DE>, Tassilo v. Parseval wrote:
    > Also sprach Chris Mattern:
    >> CountScubula wrote:
    >>> judge this by how fast you can learn a new spoken laguage as in French,
    >>> German, etc... sure we can learn the words, and I can say "Pick up the
    >>> pencil" but it doesnt become fluent for a while.

    >>
    >> Human languages are far larger and immensely more complex than
    >> computer languages--as is shown by the fact that computers
    >> can understand computer languages but not human languages.

    >
    > However and unlike with programming languages, the parsers and
    > interpreters of human languages (namely humans) usually do a good job of
    > understanding broken language (both syntactically and semantically
    > broken). This is not true for programming languages.


    Conversely, this means that you can get away with not knowing a human
    language extremely well and still be able to make yourself understood.
    With computer languages, you need to be able to speak rather precisely
    or your interlocutor may react strangely. :)

    dha

    --
    David H. Adler - <> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
    I see people didn't read the smiley I didn't include.
    - John W. Baxter
     
    David H. Adler, Jan 18, 2004
    #12
  13. Market Mutant

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Abigail" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > My point is that the fact that computer can't understand human
    > languages doesn't prove human languages are more complex.
    >


    You can't even compare the two. Computers don't understand anything; they
    react in a defined way to defined commands. Human language goes far beyond
    anything a computer language is capable of because, to cite one example,
    human language isn't just verbal. Just look at the abuse of smiley faces in
    postings to impart the meaning you don't get from the letters on your
    screen. Computer languages are finite (whether you learn everything there is
    to know about them or not), whereas human are infinite. Anyone who thinks a
    computer language is more complex than a human language needs a few
    linguistics courses.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Jan 18, 2004
    #13
  14. CountScubula <> wrote:

    > I would not consider learning any language to be done in a month, or 3-6.


    It depends on the language. At one end of the spectrum, I was productive
    in tcl after staring at the Tcl(n) man page intently for 20 minutes.
    After that it took maybe two months for my style to stabilize. At the
    other end of the spectrum you have kitchen-sink languages like C++.

    > Any programmer that comes at me with that attitude, Well, I will call him,
    > dont call me.


    Your loss. It's the *programming* that takes decades to learn.
    By comparison the programming languages are completely superficial.
    Even C++.
     
    Pierre Asselin, Jan 18, 2004
    #14
  15. Also sprach David H. Adler:
    > In article <bueggh$mob$-Aachen.DE>, Tassilo v. Parseval wrote:
    >> Also sprach Chris Mattern:
    >>> CountScubula wrote:
    >>>> judge this by how fast you can learn a new spoken laguage as in French,
    >>>> German, etc... sure we can learn the words, and I can say "Pick up the
    >>>> pencil" but it doesnt become fluent for a while.
    >>>
    >>> Human languages are far larger and immensely more complex than
    >>> computer languages--as is shown by the fact that computers
    >>> can understand computer languages but not human languages.

    >>
    >> However and unlike with programming languages, the parsers and
    >> interpreters of human languages (namely humans) usually do a good job of
    >> understanding broken language (both syntactically and semantically
    >> broken). This is not true for programming languages.

    >
    > Conversely, this means that you can get away with not knowing a human
    > language extremely well and still be able to make yourself understood.
    > With computer languages, you need to be able to speak rather precisely
    > or your interlocutor may react strangely. :)


    Glad I was understood here. :)

    When putting aside the syntactical correctness of a program (this is
    hardly an issue and indeed takes less than a few hours to learn for
    almost any programming language), the strict need for semantic
    preciseness is much harder to fullfill. The computer is not a corrective
    instance. Consider how hard our human languages would become if we were
    forced to always speak semantically correct or otherwise we wouldn't be
    understood. This would eventually make earth a rather quiet place, I
    bet.

    And therefore, when speaking about programming language and programming
    in general, it should become obvious how far more complicated things are
    in this field. It takes more than a few months to learn how to turn an
    abstract idea in one's mind into a computer program. Even worse, this
    can't be learnt once and applied everywhere because the circumstances
    have to be taken into account: like what machine this stuff is supposed
    to run on or what language will I use since different languages contain
    different concepts and I am only allowed to use those that are part of
    the language. I may have learnt programming in C but how much is this
    going to help me when I have to use LISP this time and subsequently
    must do it without my beloved pointers?

    Tassilo
    --
    $_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
    pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
    $_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval
     
    Tassilo v. Parseval, Jan 18, 2004
    #15
  16. Market Mutant

    Ben Morrow Guest

    "Matt Garrish" <> wrote:
    > Computers don't understand anything; they react in a defined way to
    > defined commands.


    s/commands/stimuli/;
    And humans don't? Obviously, predicting the reaction of a given person
    to a given stimulus is much much harder than predicting that of a
    given computer, but this is only because we understand the innards of
    computers rather better than we understand the innards of our own
    brains. They are both based on exactly the same physical laws.

    And no, I don't have a philosophical problem reconciling this with
    free will, and no, I don't need to invoke quantum uncertainty to do
    so.

    > Computer languages are finite (whether you learn everything there is
    > to know about them or not), whereas human are infinite.


    The number of syntactically correct Perl programs is just as infinite
    as the number of comprehensible English sentences, including such
    nuances as facial expression where they make a difference to the
    meaning conveyed.

    > Anyone who thinks a computer language is more complex than a human
    > language needs a few linguistics courses.


    With this I would not disagree. The point is, though, that a computer
    language generally has to be learned much better before you can make
    yourself understood, because computers have much less imagination than
    people.

    Ben

    --
    Every twenty-four hours about 34k children die from the effects of poverty.
    Meanwhile, the latest estimate is that 2800 people died on 9/11, so it's like
    that image, that ghastly, grey-billowing, double-barrelled fall, repeated
    twelve times every day. Full of children. [Iain Banks]
     
    Ben Morrow, Jan 18, 2004
    #16
  17. Market Mutant

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Ben Morrow" <> wrote in message
    news:buf4dc$sr7$...
    >
    > "Matt Garrish" <> wrote:
    > > Computers don't understand anything; they react in a defined way to
    > > defined commands.

    >
    > s/commands/stimuli/;
    > And humans don't? Obviously, predicting the reaction of a given person
    > to a given stimulus is much much harder than predicting that of a
    > given computer, but this is only because we understand the innards of
    > computers rather better than we understand the innards of our own
    > brains. They are both based on exactly the same physical laws.
    >


    No, it's because a computer will always react in the same way. You don't
    compile your code and hope that the computer will understand it the way you
    wanted (well, good programmers don't, I suppose). The difference is that you
    *can* predict a computer's reaction (it wouldn't be the most useful of tools
    if you had to convince it to do what you wanted).

    >
    > > Computer languages are finite (whether you learn everything there is
    > > to know about them or not), whereas human are infinite.

    >
    > The number of syntactically correct Perl programs is just as infinite
    > as the number of comprehensible English sentences, including such
    > nuances as facial expression where they make a difference to the
    > meaning conveyed.
    >


    It's not finite or infinite in terms of the number you can put together, but
    in the way in which you can understand them. I can't remember the comic
    anymore (and it's funny that I can actually use this now, as there was a
    post earlier in the day that reminded me of it), but there was a fellow
    whose routine was to say "dude" in a variety of different ways (to show how
    meaning is derived from context). "Dude", depending on how he said it, could
    signify anything from a puzzled inquiry of whether someone was present to an
    affirmation of assent (if memory serves, I think it was around the time of
    "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures"). Anyway, to make a long story short,
    directing a computer to print "dude" will cause it to print "dude". You can
    change where you send the output to, but the it will always be just a plain
    old dude...

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Jan 19, 2004
    #17
  18. Abigail <> wrote:

    > Chris Mattern () wrote on MMMDCCXCII September MCMXCIII in
    ><URL:news:>:
    >==
    >== Human languages are far larger and immensely more complex than
    >== computer languages--as is shown by the fact that computers
    >== can understand computer languages but not human languages.
    >
    > OTOH, the fast majority of humans understand nothing of computer
    > languages, and can't even deal with the most simple subset of them
    > (while computers nowadays can deal with simplified human languages).
    > Furthermore, most humans only speak one human language well, and only a
    > few make it past knowing two languages well.
    >
    > My point is that the fact that computer can't understand human
    > languages doesn't prove human languages are more complex.


    True enough, but there are other ways to demonstrate the complexities of
    human languages. I doubt that any existing computer language could
    express the range of thought found in, for example, even one of
    Shakespeare's plays. Translating most computer programs into a precise
    description in English (or perhaps Dutch) would be relatively easy -- but
    tedious -- for someone who knows both the computer and human languages.

    Contrariwise, a language like Mathematica is designed to handle concepts
    that are difficult to express without mathematical symbology. Doing math
    while confining yourself to symbols ill-suited for it would and did slow
    things down considerably. Some examples are the difficulty of doing long
    division while using Roman numerals, or algebra with Italian, French, or --
    but of course -- Arabic.

    The comparison is kind of silly, anyway. I wouldn't want to write a sonnet
    in Perl (Perl poetry notwithstanding*), nor would I want to write a
    computer program in English. Didn't Cobol try to do something like that
    already?

    Perl and English are both "human" languages because they're invented and
    used by humans to express things. Perl is good for giving computers
    instructions to do text processing (among other things), and English is
    good for talking to other English-speaking humans. Use the appropriate
    tool.

    This thread seems to have wandered far afield from Perl or PHP....


    (* I'm not in the habit of writing sonnets anyway.)

    --
    David "but then again I could be wrong, after all I'm not Larry" Wall
     
    David K. Wall, Jan 19, 2004
    #18
  19. Market Mutant

    G Klinedinst Guest

    Chris Mattern <> wrote in message
    > > I would not consider learning any language to be done in a month, or 3-6.
    > >
    > > Any programmer that comes at me with that attitude, Well, I will call him,
    > > dont call me.
    > >

    > Your loss then. In my opinion, an average new language can be
    > learned well in a month of intense study. If the language
    > involves a radically different way of expressing a program's
    > logic (Prolog, for example), it can be learned in 3-6 months.


    I agree with you on this one 100% Chris. In college we were expected
    to learn how to program in new languages at a fairly high level in
    about 4 months in a course meeting for 3 hours/wk + homework time,
    which is nowhere near a 40hr/week work week.

    Obviously if you have a project that needs done yesterday then get
    someone in who knows the language well at the onset, pay them high
    contract wages( $60-80/hour) and get the project done, then bring on
    someone else full-time.

    If, on the other hand you are looking for a long term addition to you
    company there are WAY more important factors than if they know a
    specific language(work ethic, honesty, compatibility with your office
    culture, intelligence, etc). I would go so far as to say that if you
    hire someone who cannot learn a new language quickly you should be
    looking elsewhere. Programming is nothing more than logical problem
    solving, and languages are the tools we use to solve those problems.
    Anyone worth their paycheck should be able to pick up a new one and be
    programming in less than a month.

    >Personaly, I don't see it as high as $60k. Don't get me wrong,
    >there may be a Java programmer making that or more. People get
    >paid what thier worth, unfortunalty, to any of my companies,
    >Java is worthless. I would rather take on two PHP programmers
    >at $30k apiece


    This is crazy. I'm not sure why you would go to college and learn to
    do something as difficult as programming to make the same money as a
    bus driver. You can get $50K or more starting salary for Perl or PHP
    if you move to the right metro area. Usually about 10K more per year
    with Java. Just watch out for the cost of living and competition for
    jobs in some areas.

    -Greg K.
     
    G Klinedinst, Jan 19, 2004
    #19
  20. Abigail wrote:
    > My point is that the fact that computer can't understand human
    > languages doesn't prove human languages are more complex.


    Nevertheless, human languages are _far_ more complicated. A _very_
    simplified YACC grammar for English has about 10,000 rules. (Exception:
    the artificial language Loglan (http://www.loglan.org) has only about
    150; interestingly, Loglan is _very_ difficult to learn.)

    --
    John W. Kennedy
    "But now is a new thing which is very old--
    that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
    which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
    -- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
     
    John W. Kennedy, Jan 19, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sanny
    Replies:
    391
    Views:
    41,699
    anish.mathew84
    Jan 6, 2010
  2. Sanny
    Replies:
    396
    Views:
    7,084
    Noah Roberts
    Dec 17, 2008
  3. Rajive Narain
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,943
    Rajive Narain
    Sep 18, 2009
  4. Jeremy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    102
    Jeff Cochran
    Oct 30, 2003
  5. Ruby Baby
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    246
    Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT
    Feb 20, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page