Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail 274
snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister discusses the proliferation of programming languages and what separates the successful ones from obscurity. 'Some people say we don't need any more programming languages at all. I disagree. But it seems clear that the mainstream won't accept just any language. To be successful, a new language has to be both familiar and innovative — and it shouldn't try to bite off more than it can chew. ... At least part of the formula for success seems to be pure luck, like a band getting its big break. But it also seems much easier for a language to shoot itself in the foot than to skyrocket to stardom.'"
Nah! It's Facial hair... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nah! It's Facial hair... (Score:4, Funny)
I dread to think what Grace Hopper looked like.
Clams may have beards too, y'know.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of women in the history of science, and in computer science. They're all ... well they're not beauty queens. In fact there's very few beautiful women in science at all, and of course very few beautiful men (or so I hear from ...).
And this is good. It means that they actually did something important, were actually capable of doing interesting things.
Re: (Score:2)
Ada Lovelace, judging by portraits, was no slouch for looks. I vaguely recall reading secondary sources, but I can't cite them. Ditto for Sonja Kovalevsky (for her, there's photographic evidence).
That said, you're right. Beauty doesn't matter in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, she wasn't that bad lookijng, but I'm having a hard time finding photos of her when she was young. This photo [computerhistory.org] looks like she's maybe 50 or so.
Re: (Score:2)
I dread to think what Grace Hopper looked like.
Grace: When will professional women be treated with respect?
Master Po: Patience Grace Hopper. If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present. But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future. The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
Grace: Whatever.
Compatibility or conversion (Score:3, Insightful)
c++ would have died within months if it didn't accept existing c code.
So why the fuck do we have Python, Java, and C#? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you say is utter bupkis and bullshit. There are many relatively modern languages that have become very popular without having any sort of real compatibility with C, C++, or any other programming language.
Just look at Perl, Python, Ruby, Java and C# for some examples. Those have all arisen in the last 20 to 25 years, well after C was extremely well established. While they can call out to external C code with varying degrees of difficulty, they aren't code-compatible with C in any way. SO HOW IN THE FUC
Re: (Score:2)
Because for instance, Perl can interface with C libraries? (just write the right lib.xs for your C lib.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, him saying "call out to external C code with varying degrees of difficulty" is purely disingenuous. There is NO difficulty; it may be slightly tedious, but really, no, it's not a big deal. It's quite easy to get a Java/Ruby/v8 (node.js) application bound to an existing C/C++ code-base.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh... java has JNI and Python has fairly trivial native bindings.
In fact an awful lot of the power of Python comes from the ease in which you can string together a bunch of stuff that uses the sophisticated underlying C libs in a RAD style. It's part of the beauty of the whole thing, and part of the major appeal of python.
So your rant is totally off target.
Re:Compatibility or conversion (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't expect me to port existing code to your new language
Who says you need to port anything? If the language has a foreign function interface, you can just maintain the old code and build on top of it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the great thing about the JVM ... you can try out different paradigms, but you can always reuse the code, no matter if it is written in Java, Jython, JRuby, or any of the more experimental languages I don't even know about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think people program in "old java" anymore. That's like saying people still use K&R C -- no, largely, we upconvert it to modern conventions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One would hope that a particular library/framework that is being used would be familiar to the people who maintain the code. If that's the case, then I don't see how operator overloading would be considered a drawback. Alas, IMHO C++ operator overloading is, to an extent, a crutch needed because the language is not very expressive. For example, in C++ the most concise way of setting up a constant type-safe matrix might be like this (this syntax is from eigen):
Matrix m;
m 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6,
7, 8
Re:Compatibility or conversion (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems nice when you first read about it but ends up a maintenance nightmare.
No, it doesn't. Anyone who understands C++ reads operators just like functions.
You see +, and translate it in your head to a call to a function called "plus" (technically operator+()).
Well, guess what, no language prevents you from giving functions stupid names. You can write a function in any language called "add" which doesn't add things. Just as in C++ you can write a function called operator+() which doesn't add things. There is *no* difference.
Operator overloading when done well vastly decreases maintainance required because the code becomes much, much simpler to read.
Re:Compatibility or conversion (Score:4, Insightful)
This is precisely the problem with C++: it's impossible to say what any given line of code actually does without examining every line the compiler has seen before, including other included files.
By definition, if you're using a feature "well" you're using it in a way that's doing more good than harm. That doesn't mean that the feature is good.
Re: (Score:3)
The limits that would impose on syntax and underlying data models would essentially stop all real evolution in this space. Thank your lucky stars this attitude is not pervasive or we'd all be working with slightly improved BASIC, FORTRAN, COBOL, and Ada environments today. The lucky ones would be maintaining code bases comprised of horrible COBOL to C conversions. If you have been in the retail or finance industries you have encountered some CBOL at some point.
No if anything new languages should provide
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. One of a programmer's favorite past-times is to rewrite a program in a new language.
Why? Because it gives us a chance to ditch some of the *shudder* old hackish code. A clean break, with an explanation that "what once was, is no longer."
All of this, of course, while being paid. ;-)
Re:Compatibility or conversion (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why COBOL is still alive, too much legacy code and too many libraries to re-implement. That doesn't really say much about new languages though, C to C++ is more the exception to the rule here in that it was an extension to C but C itself kept living its own life. Most other languages just grow and grow with one new feature here and one there and a few things deprecated but never really gone. And that's really why most new languages appear, to get rid of all the crud. To get rid of all the legacy code. To get rid of unsafe methods, stupid interfaces, stupid syntax, stupid keywords, inheritance systems, constructors/initialization and whatnot. I program in Qt/C++... but I'd just love to redo it without all the C-isms and take the best from Java and C#, it'd just be a helluva job. Many of the popular languages have had a huge corporation backing them - Sun for Java (now Oracle), Microsoft for C#, it's not just a language but today I'd also expect a fairly complete standard library (which is why I said Qt/C++, I'd not do plain C++) and that's a lot of work.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't expect me to port existing code to your new language.
This part made me laugh so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Most new languages have some sort of foreign function interface so compatibility not that important.
Re:Compatibility or conversion (Score:5, Interesting)
The main one is: Avoid template fuckery. You know that book by Alexandrescu? Don't do that! Well unless you're writing Boost. It's too easy to abuse for no real gain, like the Singleton pattern. Most programming teams will refuse to allow you to use a singleton now, even when it's justifiable, because of the abuses to the pattern. If you're factoring primes with recursive templates at compile time, you're creating a maintenance nightmare and future generations of programmers will curse your name. Though I still think it'd be a fun exercise to do a compile time matrix multiply library...
Not that you can completely avoid using templates in C++. But if you avoid it for as long as you reasonably can, your chances of actually using them well when the time comes are much better. You'll probably still get burned by odd template rules, but at least most of your code won't have that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Easier to find a Java job in the northeast than any other language. C# is the closest and it isn't that close. C and C++ jobs are still here, but far, far less than 10 years ago.
Java failed in the browser but not because of compatibility - it was because it was a slow and awful experience, Javascript succeeded wildly in the browser and it is far less C-compatible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that the "Java failed" post was a sarcastic counter example of a language that stood on its own.
Java is unusual because it had a billion dollar marketing push explaining how it would change everything. Managers were taking Java classes to learn how it would change everything. None of this was aimed at the enterprise. It failed to be adopted most places it was aimed and somehow backed into the enterprise area due to lack of competition among Microsoft alternatives.
So the answer as to why Java di
Re: (Score:2)
There are also far less people with the skills.
While I do worry about skills becoming obsolete, it seems like us C and C++ programmers are never far from a job because there are so few of us around compared to web dev, java and other higher level developers.
Re:Compatibility or conversion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like sarcasm to me. After all, Java is, in any measure, a successful language and platform. A considerable number of respectable higher education institutions have adopted java as the programming language for both OO courses and intro to programming, and any job search returns a high number of jobs which explicitly require proficiency in java programming.
If that wasn't enough, there's android developing. Nowadays, if you want to develop software for a smartphone you are basically forced to write
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it - Java is basically just C with objects, a huge library, without pointers, and compiles to universal format that runs on a VM.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like C# or Javascript (ok, Javascript usually doesn't get compiled).
Are you confusing sarcasm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping you are being sarcastic with Java failed? Java went quickly to becoming the most popular language. I can accuse Java of lots of bad stuff. Failing to win market share ain't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't expect me to port existing code to your new language. Either make it compatible - i.e. an old language with new features - or provide me with an automated conversion tool.
c++ would have died within months if it didn't accept existing c code.
+1. This is exactly why Java failed.
I'm hoping you are being sarcastic with Java failed? Java went quickly to becoming the most popular language. I can accuse Java of lots of bad stuff. Failing to win market share ain't one of them.
He specifically said in the browser. How many java apps do you see on web pages nowadays?
I just quoted every parent post. Not one of them mentions browser or anything remotely related... until yours.
Re: (Score:2)
No he didn't as VGPowerlord mentioned.
But even if he had, Java failures in the browser had nothing to do with conversion tools. There were no browser based apps to convert.
Re: (Score:2)
Objective-C (Score:5, Insightful)
What you can also do, is promise great riches, as in the case of Apple/iOS/Objective-C.
Re:Objective-C (Score:4, Funny)
I assume you mean aside from Objective-C being one of the best languages available?
Objective-C is 30 years old (Score:2)
There is no magic formula. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no magic formula. But there are some simple things that I find help me that have NOTHING to do with the language itself, or it's technical advantages/disadvantages. Strangely, they correlate in no way to popularity of the languages
You need a single document to sell me your new language. If you can't explain the concepts, basically, to a programmer in a page or two (enough that if you try to sell EVERYTHING I get bored reading the document as a whole), then it won't wash. If I can't understand why I should use your language, I won't. (Spreading it across a Wiki doesn't count, unless that Wiki has a complete copy available as a PDF or something readable.)
Your documentation should also help when I have a "how the hell do I do X?" question.
You shouldn't just assume that your way is the best. Ever. Just don't. It'll annoy me.
You shouldn't just assume that I'm happy to spend a year learning the quirks of your language.
I should be able to knock up a quick sample program, that uses one of your new features, and understand it in a matter of minutes. Literally. Minutes. Including downloading and installing your compiler / interpreter and getting it running.
Google sort of understood this with Go: http://golang.org/ [golang.org] They have all of the above, and even an online "compiler". They fail a tiny bit with "what's new" and selling the language, really, which is a bit of a shame, but they do a good job.
Ruby does okay too.
But PHP, one of the most popular languages, has a web-site that doubles as a bomb-site. It's hideous and has always put me off, even if they do have some of this information hidden away. It's not selling the language at all(presumably because they're "big enough" for everyone to just know about it). It's like reading a security/release-mailing blog sometimes.
C# doesn't sell the language at all, anywhere, online as far as I can tell. The first hit is Wikipedia. The next few are resource sites.
As far as I can see, C# succeeded because it was backed by a big company. By contrast, Go is still pretty obscure (which shows you there is no magic formula - Go aces a lot of the checklists but still lingers in the background). PHP succeeded because it was quick, simple, powerful and "came first" in terms of web scripting. It also created one of the web's largest security nightmares, which was something it was supposed to replace (Perl CGI).
C was popular because it was unique at the time, and powerful. C++ was popular basically because C was (that doesn't mean it didn't have advantages too, but it got popular by riding along - not by it's own merit at first, but that's what HAS kept it in place ever since).
There's no way to predict a success. Ruby / Rails came out of nowhere as far as I'm concerned and Ruby's been around since the 90's (Has it? Really? Bloody hell! Where was that hiding?). But things like Haskell were around too in that time and have never really caught on.
It seems the criteria are "ready - while being in the right place and right time", and almost the inverse of what you'd expect given a look at how much they want to ease programmers in. It seems that if you want to stand a good chance of being the next-big-thing, make an awful website, don't put up examples, make the simplest thing complicated or impossible, make an horrendous security mess, and then put it online. Then find the next fad, say your language is perfect for it, and push it everywhere you can.
Re:There is no magic formula. (Score:5, Insightful)
But things like Haskell were around too in that time and have never really caught on.
Huh? When Haskell came out it was a replacement to Gopher, a language not even terribly popular with the functional community. Haskell is now by far the #2 most popular functional language, passing even languages like Mathematica. Haskell has become the primary language of compiler design with ideas from Haskell leaking into most compilers including most importantly the Visual Studio compilers. Ideas from Haskell have led to whole new classes of languages like Scala and Clojure. Ideas like lazy data structures are become standard approaches in many languages.
Further Haskell has completely altered the entire way people think of functional programming. Monadic methods are now standard in most functional languages.
In what sense is Haskell not a huge success? Sure it isn't the mainstream language of choice, but then again a language that isn't good with interactive I/O is going to be unsuited for most day to day programming problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? When Haskell came out it was a replacement to Gopher,
I think you mean Gofer [wikipedia.org] - which was an implementation of (an early draft of) the Haskell language. NB most of the innovations you mention (e.g. lazy data structures) were around before Haskell came on the scene :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was making a similar point here [slashdot.org] in a similar recent discussion [slashdot.org], saying that syntax isn't enough to capture the success of a language. You need to look at how accessible it is.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I think C# was a big success partly as you say because Microsoft rammed it down everyone's throat with .net, and partly because it made Java programmers not wet themselves with fear.
I'd personally say it's 50/50 between those two. I know a lot of people who learned Java first that are absolutely petrified of ever having to actually understand how a computer works. C# appeals to that in a big way.
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, I think the complete opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
I HATE language selling sites. Many a new language or framework has a VERY nice presentation site telling you that THIS is the answer to your problems, this language will screw your gf, kill your dog and set your house on fire, letting you concentrate on the essentials of life. Coding.
PHP is totally different, it doesn't sell itself, it has no slick presentation, just every function described in clear plain English (and many heathen tongues like Dutch for those who were not blessed by god to be born in the
My point proven (Score:3)
This proves my point, some people care about getting things done, about being able to find out how to get things done... and others about the font used for the logo.
Who cares about the function names? I can hit a dozen developers from my desk and every single one of them will have a different idea about the best naming schematic and formatting rules. I often use 3rd party libraries, I just adjust. Go ahead and work with something else if you want but don't complain when thousands who work in less exalted po
It's all about the tools (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's all about the tools (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any evidence that's the case. The whole debugger / IDE culture was built around a small subset of languages; essentially Algol syntax with static typing like C++, C#, Objective-C Java and Visual Basic.
On the other hand the major languages that have become popular in the last 15 years are often dynamically typed: Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, Java Script. They don't have good debugger / IDE's as the technology doesn't exist yet.
Certainly the wealth of wonderful debuggers has helped the static languages. But they aren't a necessary condition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some level of debugging exists and there are semi-GUIs. But the kind of integrated syntax checking, debugging, IDE that exists for static languages don't exist for any dynamic languages. No one has figured out how to make them.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has figured out how to make them.
The concept might not even make sense. OTOH, the dynamic languages are much better at supporting an interactive model of development: try some things out at an interactive prompt, and cut-n-paste the stuff that works into a script file. Dress it up a little and you're good to go. It's a fast way to make something that works.
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of the problem. No one is quite sure what the proper analogies are. Komodo (Perl GUI) about a decade ago started in the right direction. I wish it had been more popular.
Smalltalk? (Score:2, Informative)
No debugging/syntax checking IDE for dynamic languages? Not if you count Smalltalk as dynamic. Smalltalk works arguably better for debugging, syntax checking, and more than static languages because of the VM concept.There can be a slight delay, especially if connecting to a VM remotely (Gemstone for instance), but Smalltalk's IDE even lets you program in the debugger. You haven't seen real TDD unless you've seen someone writing an entire app in the Smalltalk of choice's debugger. It also supports things lik
Re: (Score:2)
Point well taken about Smalltalk,. I'd agree that Smalltalk was a huge innovator on IDE/Debuggers. In general too many things resolve runtime for debugging in the classic sense to work well. So I give the static languages the credit for GUI/Debugger.
That being said there is no static language (except possibly Haskell) I'd rather write in that Smalltalk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also never write Javascript as Java Script. It confuses people who may think that Javascript is related to Java, and shows your
Re: (Score:2)
Point well taken about the space in JavaScript. Though in all fairness Netscape/Sun created the confusion by renaming LiveScript as part of their whole Java and browsers as a replacement for desktops.
As for a PHP IDE that is great, great compared to the static IDE's like Visual Studio, XCode...? Which ones? Your comment below makes me think you don't get the static advantages:
Dynamic typing doesn't really impact a debugger
I don't think you get how static language debugging works. If I have a function
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo! And for those reasons you state, Haskell fails. Haskell is a wonderful language until you attempt to do anything. The problem with Haskell is that it is essentially an academic's language with no support environment save some silly command line crap.
Heretic - we'll use emacs whatever the language! (Score:2)
Seriously tho' - python, for example, is successful without having a good IDE. There are some IDEs that some people would argue are good - but most of the people writing python are using emacs or vi.
I'm also rather sceptical about the need for a good debugger. Most of the time I find writing a couple of simple unit tests and a putting in a couple of diagnostic prints is fine for figuring out what's going on (and you have the tests forever, which means that changes are less likely to introduce bugs in existi
Re: (Score:2)
If the language is popular enough, people will write the tools for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a chicken-egg problem.
It's only worth it, if the competing languages suck too much. But languages has gotten much better in the last two decades, so the bar has been raised pretty high.
Re: (Score:2)
The tools don't necessarily have to be written in the language itself, and while the bar of a language has been raised, developing an IDE have also become much easier. Nowadays it's trivial to write an Eclipse plugin for a language.
Advice (Score:3)
People posting hypothesis of what makes a language successful: if it predicts that Modula is extremely popular and PHP is essentially unknown, maybe you should revise it instead of blindingly post it just because you'd like that to be true.
A combination of things (Score:2)
Needs to fill a need (Score:5, Interesting)
Lopes observes that few successful modern languages have roots in academia. An academic herself, she's naturally dismayed....Successful languages have a niche
That's really the heart of it. No matter how "good" a language might be from an academic's perspective, it has to be actually useful to be used.
C was (and still is) a great alternative to Assembly
Java succeeded mostly because it was Not Microsoft, but in part because C++ is a miserable language and the world was ready to replace COBOL, ALGOL/JOVIAL, and FORTRAN.
Ada failed for many reasons, but mostly because it was just glorified Pascal and had all the limitations that made Pascal a good student language but lousy for real work.
Lisp, Perl, Javascript, Python, etc. all fill niches; some niches bigger than others.
Ada did not fail at all. (Score:5, Informative)
Ada did not fail at all. It is used for exactly what it was designed for: mission critical defense applications.
Ada was not designed for intranet or web or mobile or desktop applications, although it can do those things really well.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you expand on the Pascal limitations things? I used Pascal when i was student, even in the industry (petroleum refinery) and I never encountered any kind of limitations.
Now i use more frequently Python for 3 main reasons:
* Avalability of powerful libraries
* For a same functionality program writing from 2 time to 10 time less lines of code than Pascal, Java or C/C++.
* Cover my old needs of Pascal (writing applications) plus writing some quick&dirty little scripts to help here and there
There is stil
Re: (Score:3)
but in part because C++ is a miserable language
No it isn't.
It's a great language which standardises a bunch of things that people were doing anyway in C and gives them a common syntax. It also very expressive while maintaining high performance.
I keep trying to find languages better than C++ (it certainly has its share of warts), but I keep coming back to it, because often there is no better alternative.
And it's just got a whole lit better.
Does It Have A Platform? (Score:2)
Popularity is all about making it EASIER.....and FASTER, to produce stable, fast, and reasonable footprint applications.
If a new language doesn't do that on its own, then it needs a platform or set of tools to make that happen.
If a new language just lets you do the same things, but in a different way, with maybe 1 or 2 things being better then there is no motivation to learn it, use it or make things for it.
I Know Why (Score:2)
Glad that (Score:2)
At least Brainfuck never caught on!
New languages ARE coming (Score:2)
Carnegie-Mellon has dropped OOP from their CS requirements because they felt that the OOP model was not appropriate for modern needs. Linus Torvalds says "C++ is a horrible language." In the January issue of IEEE Computer there is an article "The Java Tree Withers - The java report card: infrastructure gets a D, code reuse gets an F".
Programming languages drive devices. I'm doing heterogenous parallel processing in C and CUDA. Multicore and massivelly parallel concurrency is absolutely the future and if you
Re: (Score:3)
Carnegie-Mellon has dropped OOP from their CS requirements
Wow, and they are replacing it with imperative & functional programming [i-programmer.info].
I think it is a crime to let people out of CS school without knowing Java/C++ in this day and age. OOP has issues (I still think OO is a cult :) but you have to realize that there are a lot of practical and theoretical work done in OOP.
Also I was taught some functional programing in C. You don't really need a special language. Teaching someone Standard ML is a waste of the
Modularity (Score:3)
I find that the most important feature of a language is modularity. Have a big standard library, make it easy to use third-party libraries, including foreign ones and make it easy to create libraries.
medicine (Score:3)
I personally think that programming languages are a lot like medicine.
Your new language doesn't just have to solve a problem or two that you see with programming language, it has to do it better than existing languages while having less "side-effects" (quirks, difficulty, weaknesses).
If the advantages it provides aren't big enough to cover the costs (like learning a new language, using a new compiler, writing plugins to syntax-highlighting, etc. etc.) then they simply don't matter.
Usability trumps consistency (Score:3)
Make a programming language that's readable by humans, and have the language map concepts to code in the way humans think about things and it will be wildly popular (PHP, VB-anything, C#, Javascript/DOM). Make the programming language terse, efficient and mathematically consistent and it will be wildly popular - among mathematicians and gradually abandoned by most of the rest of humanity (e.g. Fortran, Powershell, C).
In the former cases, the machine does the heavy cognitive lifting. In the latter, you're expected to do it all. Guess why PHP is more popular than C++? Yes, PHP is sloppy, inconsistent and as random as the people who use it. That's the majority of folks who have to get some work done. As awful as the language is, it rules the web along with vb/asp and javascript.
Getting the picture?
Why success? Sometimes it's money. (Score:4, Informative)
Java succeeded because Sun 1) gave it away, and 2) threw money at giving it away. Remember "applets"? Java was supposed to be the programming language of the Web. That didn't work out. It ended up being the new COBOL, which was not Sun's intent.
Some languages fail, or get stuck, because the designer is in love with their own implementation. That happened to Pascal and Python. Wirth's own Pascal implementation was a cute little recursive-descent compiler that generated RPN byte codes, like a Java compiler. Wirth resisted changes to the language that would allow programming in the large. ISO Pascal reflects his biases. So Pascal became stuck in an educational niche. The original Macintosh software was all written in an extended Pascal, as was much '80s software. But everybody had a different dialect - there was Turbo Pascal, Clascal, and a few others. They never merged.
Modula, Wirth's second try, was also crippled in certain ways. Modula 2 was better. Modula 3 was good enough to be used to write an operating system kernel. Unfortunately, Modula 3 was only used with DEC, which died after being acquired by Compaq.
Python has some of the same problems. The feature set of Python reflects what it's easy to implement in a naive interpreter, like von Rossum's CPython. Internally, everything is an object, even integers and floats, and object access involves dictionary lookups. This makes CPython slow. Every attempt to speed up Python substantially has hit a wall, including Google's "Unladen Swallow" effort. (PyPy is making progress, but it's taken a decade and requires an incredibly complex internal combination of interpreters and compilers.)
The biggest disappointment to me has been that we're still stuck with C. C has two killer bad design decisions - the language doesn't know how big arrays are, and the "pointer=array" thing lies to the language. Both reflect how things are done in assembler, and the fact that the original compiler had to fit in a 128K PDP-11. Most of the millions of buffer overflows and crashes that occur daily can be traced to those two design decisions. (C++, as I point out occasional, tries to paper over these problems with collection classes. But the mold usually seeps through the wallpaper, since most operating system and library calls want raw C pointers.)
Re:Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say 'killer application' applies to programmers as much as does to consumers, so 'killer platform' might be the iPhone/iPad and the language in this case might be Objective C ?
Re:Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
The average programmer doesn't get much say in the matter- it is the company that hires him that does.
However, yes, it comes down to marketing. Big companies like Microsoft have a much better chance of convincing a CIO that they need to be using their language.
Let's assume a theoretical company, Megasoft, produced a language Db - D Flat is much better than C Sharp - it is easier to learn- faster to compile- produces smaller .exes, runs much faster. It even puts the kettle on and makes you a cup of tea whilst you program (coffee if you prefer).
Which company do you think the CIO is going to go with- Microsoft with their flashy brochures- or Megasoft that no-one has heard of with their awesome product.
Right, the CIO will insist that all coding be done with Microsoft. Microsoft will no doubt have given him a t-shirt at the last trade booth. Thus, they are the obvious choice.
Re: (Score:3)
it is easier to learn- faster to compile- produces smaller .exes, runs much faster
Ok, lets talk about the debugging tools. Those are all nice things to have, and relatively important, but also probably not the main concern any longer, or at least not my main concern. Ever evolving hardware has managed to alleviate what may have been considered major feature points back in the day. I think ultimately when I'm "language shopping" debugging facilities would be my primary concern. Nobody is going to care about a language unless developers can produce working code in it.
Maybe I'm just not
Re: (Score:3)
If I were to choose between a language with a shiny debugger and a language with well-chosen features that allow the programmer to write clean, readable code that works right the first time, I'd choose the latter. Additionally, I wouldn't need the debugger afterwards.
To each his own. I'm well past the illusion of "not needing a debugger", that is pure myth when dealing with significant complexity. I've had to deal with enough strange code other people have written. And when it's not your code then "works right the first time" doesn't mean a damn thing anyway. Congrats on getting to an autonomous position where you write (or rewrite?) everything.
Then check out Gambit-C debugger (an implementation of Scheme).
The garbage I've had to deal with lately is the Altera and Xilinx debuggers which are both hacked up versions of the gnu /
Re:Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
So who was pushing Perl, PHP or Ruby?
Re:Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging by languages that have succeeded over the past 20 years, I would say that the main factor in success is a large company pushing the language.
I'm having trouble thinking of any such languages other than Java and C#. I don't recall C (if you go back a bit more than 20 years), Perl, PHP, Python, or JavaScript becoming widely adopted because they were pushed by large companies (though I admit that JavaScript is debatable).
"almost free" languages do better (Score:2)
In mos operating systems Java is free.
Re:Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail (Score:4, Insightful)
I really can't agree with that. Which large companies pushed perl, ruby, or python? Those who pushed were not large by the standards of the global IT market. It was the fact that many smaller companies and development houses got on board, seeding the market with programmers who knew the new languages, that made them successful.
And even the "successful" ones have had limited success. For example, show me a non-web application that was developed with Ruby and not using Rails. Now granted, the libraries and frameworks of a language (like JEE) have a great deal to do with their acceptance by the industry, but I think it speaks volumes about the supposed benefits of some of these languages that they went no where until someone was fanatical enough to write framework libraries using them.
In a sense, the role of the language itself seems to have shifted to the lower levels of the machine, almost assembly-like. In the meantime, the application framework has become the new "programming API" of the language library, rather than the boring and basic string and math functions that used to comprise language libraries. People now drop out of the framework into custom code only when they are forced to, with the bulk of the coding being more in the use of annotations and tags to tie pieces of the application together automagically rather than having to be expressly coded with multiple lines of low-level code.
Of course this all comes at a price. The more you rely on things like tags and annotations, the more your code is relying on introspection and adaptive code, which is inherently slower than code which was written specifically for the attribute accessors and data types being manipulated.
Worse, some of the framework libraries I've seen make the horrendous mistake of completely ignoring the protocols and communications styles used by legacy code. If you're going to succeed in the business arena (where most coding is done), you HAVE to deal with those old systems, and that means making it easy to deal with EDI transforms as well as XML based IOs.
By no means am I arguing that we don't need specialized languages for special purposes in the overall application stack. Tools like Ruby on Rails are needed to simplify work in their slice of the system pie. But I can't see there being another "big thing" like Java or C# any time in the near future, but rather the continued evolution of those languages.
Another factor is that people get tired of playing with new languages when they don't take off, and that speaks volumes to their fitness for a purpose. Languages like C++ took over a decade to really catch on, but their ideas were novel enough that the early adopters stuck with them and kept using them while momentum built. Nowadays if you don't have significant mindshare within a few years, people seem to give up and move on to something else/better. Were these languages really a significant improvement, their fans would stick with them and promote their use despite their unpopularity.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I just being ignorant or was there no large company behind python either?
Re: (Score:2)
Adopt is transitive, succeed isn't.
Type mismatch near line 0. Bailing...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, had Lisp been more widely taught, we would be talking about (incf Lisp) rather than C++ when we argue about programming languages. What is taught in school affects programmers' choices about languages and designs more than anything else. Most schools today teach C++ and Java; is it any surprise that these languages or very similar languages are commonly chosen for new projects, even where there are other equally valid choices (say, Clojure instead of Java or OCaml in
Re: (Score:2)