Go ahead and show the new support for languages like JavaScript and Ruby in IDEs like Netbeans to Java bigots and see how far you get. Show them how autocompletion, basic checking, and tons of other conveniences are there and working (and it's open source, and there's almost certainly a way to get commercial support, and blah blah blah). They may still disregard it. No matter how sophisticated the tooling support is, no matter how much you take care of technical things, they're still afraid of anything that's different and are looking for any excuse they can to maintain the status quo.
He only briefly alluded to it (80% politics, 20% technology), but like so much else that is discussed in terms of tools and technologies, this is a people problem. It's depressing, really.
Depending on the company and the projects maintaining the status quo may be the best decision you can take.
Right now we have 20 years worth of legacy code in ADA. We have a legal obligation to maintain a large percentage of that code to 2075. Our demand for programmers in this location is such that essentially we run training schools to meet demand and would have to do the same in any language.
What _possible_ advantage would there be in moving to a new language for new projects? Before the life cycle is up any new toy would be old and rusty. We have to train programmers anyway. Supporting two languages would double the overhead. Our existing skill base is productive in ADA. Real Software Engineering is only 5% programming at most.
This is of course a bit of an extreme example - but it serves to illustrate the point that in the continuum there will be plenty of companies on the 'don't move' side of the equation, where it is far more profitable to stay with what they already know, at least for now.
"they're still afraid of anything that's different and are looking for any excuse they can to maintain the status quo."
That's exactly what I want to hear! Let them keep their 600+ page C# spec and their 10+ year java resume - leaves more opportunity for people are willing to "take the risk" and pick the best tools.
One of the things that initially drew me to PG's essays is the attitude of "ok, we think our tech is really that much better, so we're going to put our money where our mouth is, and use it for our startup". Ultimately, showing is better than telling.
Programming languages are as much a social construct as they are a technological one!
Python and Ruby are doing tons of things right on the social/cultural side, but the technology was in many ways a big step backwards from Smalltalk and Lisp. The poor performance serves to reinforce the old dynamic language stereotypes.
He only briefly alluded to it (80% politics, 20% technology), but like so much else that is discussed in terms of tools and technologies, this is a people problem. It's depressing, really.