Answering to Gartner about open source

I’ve been trying to reply to this Garner post: Dynamic Programming Languages Will Be Critical to the Success of Many Next-Generation AD Efforts but Gartner’s blog system is not publishing my text, so here is it:

After reading the article I don’t know if calling them ‘dynamic
programming languages’ is a good idea. These languages are
useful not because they’re dynamic, but because they make the “idea to
deployment” cycle shorter than previous technologies. This is the main
benefit.

Anyway, the terminology in the computer science world is so complex I
will use the ‘dynamic programming languages’ terminology.

In the Key Findings I’ll like to add not only:

Dynamic programming languages require new best practices, not only
for AD, but also for production capacity planning.

…and application deployment and business processes will require
new practices. With scripting languages (specially if the architecture
is loosely coupled) modifying an application is quicker and
safer than with non-scripting languages. As soon as business people
discover they can move from idea to deployed application in two weeks
the relationship between business and apps. development will change
completely.

But I question why should I integrate dynamic programming languages
with existing software investments? As you explain in the article,
“broad commercial support for dynamic languages remains limited” and
in my experience the community support for languages like Python, Ruby
or Perl is better than initiatives like IronRuby or Groovy. Maybe
integration with existing investments is important, but a better path
would be to integrate through web protocols (REST, SOAP, SOA…) than
to do it thought proprietary/more cumbersome VM interfaces.

Also I would like to comment your report in my blog, does Gartner have
a set of policies for bloggers who want to discuss ‘Gartner only’
reports?