Enterprise Python -- Some initial thoughts

In the long run, I think there's a small book here. See 8 reasons Python will rule the enterprise — and 8 reasons it won’t | InfoWorld. The conclusion, "Teams need to migrate slowly into the future, and adopting more Python is a way to do that," seems to be sensible. Some of the cautionary tales along the way, however, don't make as much sense.

TL;DR. There are no reasons to avoid Python. Indeed, the 8 points suggest that Python is perhaps a smart decision. 

I want to focus on the negatives part of this because some of them are wrong. I think there's a "technology hegemony" viewpoint where everything in an enterprise must be exactly the same. This tends to prevent creative solutions to problems and mires an enterprise into fighting problems that are inherent in bad technology choices. Also, I think there's an enterprises are run by idiots subtext.

1. Popularity. Really this is about having polyglot software portfolio. The reasoning appears to be that a polyglot software portfolio is impossible to maintain because (1) no one can learn an old language, and (2) software will never be rewritten from an obsolete language to a modern language. If these are both true, it appears the  organization is full of idiots. The notion that a polyglot tech stack must devolve into chaos seems to ignore the endless chain of management decisions that are required to create chaos. Leaving obsolete tech in place isn't a consequence of the tech, or the tech's lack of compatibility, it's a management decision to enshrine bad ideas, frozen in amber, forever.

2. Scripting Languages. Specifically, the spreadsheet is already the de facto scripting language of choice, and nothing can be done about it. Nothing. No one can learn to use Jupyter Lab to do business analytics. If this is true, it appears that the organization is full of idiots. Python will not replace all spreadsheets. A pandas data frame will replace an opaque macro-filled nightmare with code that can be unit tested. Imagine unit testing a spreadsheet. Consider the possibilities of expanding business analysis work to include a few test cases; not 100% code coverage, but a few test cases to confirm the analytical process was implemented consistently. 

3. Dynamic Languages. Specifically, dynamic languages are useless for reliable software because there's no comprehensive type checking across some interfaces. Which begs the question of why there are software failures in statically typed languages. More importantly, complaining about dynamic languages raises important questions about integration and acceptance testing procedures in an organization in general. All languages require extensive test suites for all developed code. All languages benefit from static analysis. Sometimes the compiler does this, sometimes external tools do the linting. Sometimes folks use both the compiler and linters to check types. If we are sure dynamic languages will break, are we equally sure statically typed languages cannot break? Or, do we take steps to prevent problems? I think we tend to take a lot of steps to make sure software works.

4. Tooling. I can't figure this point out. But somehow C++ or Java have better tools for managing large source code bases. There are no details behind this claim, so I'm left to guess. I would suggest that the "incremental recompilation" problem of large C++ (and Java) code bases is its own nightmare. Folks go to great lengths to architect C++ so that an implementation change does not require recompilation of everything. While this could be seen as "evolved to handle the jobs that enterprise coders need done", I submit that there's a deeper problem here, and stepping away from the compiler is a better solution than complex architectures. See Lakos Large-Scale C++ Software Design for some architectural features that don't solve any enterprise problem, but solve the scaling problem of big C++ applications. This bumps into the micro-services/monolith discussion, and the question of carefully testing each interface. None of which has anything to do with Python specifically.

5. Machine Learning and Data Science. These are fads, apparently. I'm not sure I can respond to this, since it has little to do with Python. Of course, Python has one of the most complete data science toolsets, so perhaps avoiding data science makes it easier to avoid Python.

6. Rapid Growth. The growth of Python is rapid, and there's no promise of endless backwards compatibility. This is a consequence of active development and learning. I think it's better than the endless backwards compatibility that leads to JavaScript's list of WATs. Or the endless confusion between java.util.date and Joda-Time. The idea that no one will ever look at the Enterprise code base for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures seems to indicate a lack of concern for reliability or security. Since the entire compiled code base has to be checked for vulnerabilities, why not also check the Python code base for ongoing upgrades and changes and enhancements? Is code really written once and never looked at again? If so, it sounds like an organization run by idiots.

7. Python Shipped With Some OS's. There's a long story of woe that stems from relying on the OS-supplied Python. The lesson learned here is Never Rely on the OS Python; Always Install Your Own. This doesn't seem like a reason to avoid Python in the enterprise. It seems like an important lesson learned for all software that's not part of the OS: always install your own. I've been using Miniconda to spin up Python environments and absolutely love it.

8. Open Source Software. Agreed. Nothing to do with Python specifically. Everything to do with tech stack and architecture. The question of using Open Source in the first place doesn't seem difficult. It's a well-established way to reduce start-up costs for software development.

Of the eight points, two seem to be completely generic issues. Yes, Machine Learning is new, and yes, choices must be made. The two questions around scripting and dynamic languages seem specious; all programming requires careful design and testing. The Python shipped with the OS is a non-concern; the lesson learned is clear.

We have have three remaining points:

1. Polyglot Portfolio (From pursuing popularity.) This is already the case in most Enterprises, and needs to be managed through aggressive retiring of old software. I may have taken decades to build that old app, but it often takes months to rewrite it in a new language. The legacy app provides acceptance test cases; it's often filled with cruft and detritus of old decisions. 
2. Tooling. Agreed. Tooling is important. Not sure that Java or C++ have a real edge here, but, tooling is important.
3. Growth and Change. Python's rapid evolution requires active management. An enterprise must adopt a YBYO (You Build it You Own it) attitude so that every level of management is aware of the components they're responsible for. CVE's are checked, Python PEP's are checked. Tools like tox or nox are used to build (and rebuild) virtual environments.

If these seem like a high bar, perhaps there are deeper issues in the enterprise. If adding Yet Another Language is a problem, then it's time to start retiring some languages. If Adding Another Tool is a problem, it's worth examining the existing tool chain to see why it's such a burden. If the idea of change is terrifying, perhaps the ongoing change is not being watched carefully enough.