The Problem Of Developing 438
A reader writes "ZDNet News is running an editorial about the choice of programming languages for developers today. The author suggests that developers have been left with little choice because all of the current programming languages are essentially the same."
C# (Score:4, Funny)
They both are brilliant innovations by Microsoft that will carry us all into the wonderful future on the information superhighway!
Re:C# (Score:3, Informative)
hmm... as a matter of fact, pluggable ideas for
i use
the only conclusion that i have come to (on the subject of the article referenced here) is that
its true... they werent the same to begin with, but one super large company seems to think that merging them all together is a good idea.
hmmmm....
Re:C# (Score:3, Insightful)
But is that a good thing? What if there's a security hole/bug that was prevalent in the CLR? All the languages that use the CLR would be affected.
Besides, the concept of "one runtime to rule the all" doesn't sound appealing. Different languages for different uses. Java for cross-plaform compatibility, C/C++ for speed, Perl for quick text parsing, etc.
-Cyc
Re:C# (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but then, when that bug is fixed, all the... oh, wait. (Light goes on above head)
Re:C# (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about how much time you need to learn another language: 1-2 hours (or less) to learn the language, days or months to learn the API that language uses/has.
.NET unifies C run time library (an API) with VB global methods, also VBS Collection classes, or ASP's Server object. Now, every language has access to everything.
Your language has 'for's', while's, variables, calls, exceptions, math. Perhaps 20-30 keywords. Your Win32 or Posix or
Languages are trivial, APIs are hard!
(Please mod this down)
Re:C# (Score:4, Insightful)
The wise programmer chooses a language for it's denotational properties. Such as: how straight forward is it to solve my problem in this language? Does the language provide me with early predicitions as to where the problems with my code are going to be? Does the language have constructs that directly capture the ideas you want to work with?
So you see, having several languages implemented for one back end, so that I can write my lexing routines in PERL, write my AST construction routines in Java, and my compiler in Scheme, ammounts basically to choosing the right tool for the job.
How isn't this appealing?
Re:C# (Score:2)
C# & .NET are not new or innovative (Score:2)
As for
The idea that Microsoft created this completely new and innovative technology is strictly a PR campaign.
Re:C# & .NET are not new or innovative (Score:2)
Re:C# (Score:2, Informative)
I was just wondering if they changed that since I graduated from college.
;-)
What is he smoking (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What is he smoking (Score:3, Informative)
that being said, i don't think C/C++ is always the right way to go. it all comes down to picking the right tool for the job.
Re:What is he smoking (Score:5, Insightful)
The embedded market is enormous and C/C++ aren't going away anytime soon.
JOhn
Re:What are YOU smoking (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting perspective..
What I got out of the article was:
Because of CLR, most languages for a common runtime will end up having the same abilities, just different syntaxes.
So, if you know VB.Net, you'll be as 'powerful' a developer as someone who knows C#. But then your C# is probably watered down also.
I think he's saying CLR has it's advantages, BUT keep in mind you may be sacraficing a better tool for the current job.
Kinda like Java.. choose interpreted platform interoperability over compiled speed.
I saw/remember nothing about "All other languages will die.." What would I do with my REXX knowledge? :)
Re:What are YOU smoking (Score:2)
Re:What is he smoking (Score:4, Funny)
You program in C for a living? Well, I recently landed a job involving fortran programming.
[/]
Conclusion: ZDNet author is a dimwit if he believes every programmer in the world does nothing but shopping carts.
Or should I do shopping carts with "fortran.NET"? Bwahahaha...
Re:What is he smoking (Score:3, Interesting)
WHY: The article is simplistic... (Score:2)
As far as his claim is concerned, "Java and
In light of all this, the author has concluded that any modern language will be a Java clone only varying slightly in basic expression syntax.
Futher, he seems to suggest that Java and
THIS ISN'T TRUE...
People have already implemented a number of alternative languages for the Java platform including Lisp, Python, and god knows what else.... The same for
THIS DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO ISSUES
The big issue with JavaLisp, JavaPython, and JavaBasic is how to get them to interoperate. Microsoft provides the interoperation with
In conclusion: He's wrong and he's right...
Re:What is he smoking (Score:4, Interesting)
When it's possible (right staff, right project, etc.) IT departments try to avoid C/C++.
Does that mean C is going away? No. It's also unfair to compare it to COBOL. When performance is important C/C++ is the only choice. However, if you have a chance, interpreted languages really do help with code quality and development time.
If you're coding for an IT department and you are doing it in C it's *probably* because they have no other choice.
All developers aren't web developers (Score:5, Insightful)
He needed to make it clear that his scope was only web-based development.
Re:All developers aren't web developers (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh why even bother commenting...these stupid little rimshots from ZD are nothing more than attempts to capture the glory days of pitting WP against Word against Ami Pro.
Probably ZDNet's fault (Score:2, Interesting)
Truth of article depends on who you know (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this article is basically ZDNet trolling again. After all, the more "controversial" the article, the more hits they get = more ad revenue.
So today's developers will use one of three languages: Java, C# or VB.Net.
Strange, a lot [apache.org] of projects [kernel.org] I'm [tigris.org] familiar [freebsd.org] with [sourceforge.net] don't use any one of those languages. I think it depends who you talk to.
I think the author believes in two common fallacies:
I'm sure the argument is a lot more valid for big corporations, but they've always been bastions of VB and "4GL's" (even when 4GL was just a marketing term). Basically, /. has been trolled again.
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]
Re:Truth of article depends on who you know (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly!
The author is sensationalizing... and forgetting the multitude of languages out there being used for applications. I think if people [people != geeks, people == lusers like this guy] were to really know what the apps they use were made from, they'd *freak*. I'm thinking of the apps I deal with on a daily basis... and the number of languages is tremendous!
The diversity in languages, runtimes, and platforms is a good thing. It allows us to use the best tool for the job (and there usually is one) and to accomplish our tasks quickly and painlessly.
-jbn
(Former VB addict. Now healed and addicted to perl.)
Re:Truth of article depends on who you know (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry guys, Perl is not where the money is at.
Strange, my wallet disagrees with you.
It's true a lot of in-house corporate software uses VB, etc., but a lot of other software (including software produced by major corporations and sold for a LOT of money, e.g. engineering software) doesn't. Like I said originally, it depends on what part of the software development world you look at.
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]
Interesting... but far too short and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
That's it. No Web job I looked at in my two months of searching for a job recently specified anything else. No Perl. No C++ unless the job also specified ASP and DCOM. Certainly no Zope, Tcl, etc.
Is this because no one uses any other technologies? No, of course not... but those other approachs lack a strong marketing organization behind them... Programming is as prone to the influence of hype as anything else.
That is what I think is important to assert; that other choices do exist, and it should be our job as supposed experts to investigate all the options. Diversity is a healthy attribute to have... Let's hope the "hyped" languages never succeed in marginalizing all other approaches.
Re:Interesting... but far too short and simple (Score:2)
and it should be our job as supposed experts to investigate all the options
Sure, but you need people to maintain the code afterwards, and that basically means make CS graduates want to code in it. The other approaches *have* been marginalized
Dave
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Diversity (Score:5, Funny)
Maintaining 17 different operating system at once : $225k
Answering calls from 200 end users with slightly different desktops : $57k
Having your entire network, the networks of all your end users, and your entire array of backup systems turned into incomprehensible mush overnight due to an advanced virus that could easily target and replicate in your undiversified computer systems : Priceless
Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Just intriguing to see. J2EE, .NET, etc., all definitely have a place, but it is interesting seeing how many people hop on the bandwagon without requiring the developing company to prove that they eat their own dogfood.
Should have specified Windows-only developers (Score:2, Interesting)
You still can choose different languages. Nothing says you can't use C/C++, VB 6, Perl, Python, or whatever else you want. While the implication in the article is that all developers have only two choices, the article should have said that Windows-specific developers are left with the two choices of Java or the CLR languages while other developers are still free to choose the tools that fit the problem. Nothing has changed unless you are only going to do Win32 programming.
Re:Should have specified Windows-only developers (Score:2, Interesting)
Haven't used that little monster in years, myself. But I have been somewhat bemused by the fact that over the past few years, I've used perl and tcl for pretty much all of the jobs I've been hired for. I never thought, when I started using these a decade ago, that people would ever actually be looking to hire people who knew them. I just learned them because it was obvious they were useful tools of the trade.
But the "top" languages are all pretty similar, and pretty much all descendents of the algol/pascal/C innovation more than a quarter of a century ago. People keep coming up with variations on the syntax, mostly so that they can claim to have a "new, improved" language. But they are all somorphic under the skin.
Now if we could only use some of the power of languages like prolog or snobol
Re:Should have specified Windows-only developers (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, for anything other than raw numerical computations, I prefer C.
Except (Score:2)
Not Quite Right (Score:2, Interesting)
I specified VB.Net as opposed to VB; even though Microsoft would have you believe otherwise, the two are really different languages.
I don't think MS is really trying to hide that VB.Net is very different, and many many VB developers are mad at it for changing things so dramatically. Although the syntax is close, there were many changes, some make necessary by the fact that everything is now an object, and some just to drop bad practices (Wend, Goto, Variant, As Any, etc.).
The article also makes it seem like MS is advocating C# completely replacing C++, which it is not. C++ is still included in Visual Studio.NET and although MS is pushing C#, it's not going away in the MS toolbox.
If you want an example of MS dropping a language, look at Visual FoxPro. Anyone remember FoxPro? MS is still officially "no comment" on the matter, I wish they would just come out and announce that it's dead.
The different languages for CLR being alike to skins is a pretty original argument. We could pick it apart, but I see where he's going with it.
What about MI? (Score:2)
Does C++.NET still support multiple inheritance?
Fairly Microsoft Centric (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know (not far?) C++ and C are still widely used in industry. The editor speaks of C++ significance as something of the past: 5-years ago.
GUI skins are discussed as a pretty weak analogy of language interfaces to common runtime libraries. Then of course, the editors example of a GUI skin is Windows XP.
Where I work, C++ is the prime langauge. But then, we're worried about cross-platform development. Maybe that's a thing of the past, too.
Don't waste too many brain cells on this one.
Re:Fairly Microsoft Centric (Score:2)
Along the same lines as the article, which pointed out how VB gets transmogrified into VB.NET, I was reminded of an analogous example from the OSS world.
The Jython implementation of Python.
Languages (Score:5, Interesting)
A) All languages share a common runtime: Assembly. Just because I can run LISP and C on the same computer/runtime doesn't mean that they're similar. CS is all about abstraction. Of course you can have the same underlying structure, you can have different underlying structures too. That's the beauty of abstraction!
B) Java and C# are not the logical successors to C/C++. They're more like a smalltalk with a C-syntax and some trade-offs for efficiency. In terms of providing system calls and API's that are cross-platform... Well, even more like smalltalk!!
C) Remember, C++ started out as a preprocessor for C. Any "C++" code just became C code that was uglier to look at. The difference between procedural and object-oriented isn't that big a deal, other than it's often easier to think in OO and easier to implement a language that's procedural.
For a more interesting observation about the same problem that comes from Rob Pike (big UNIX guy at Bell Labs, co-wrote the UNIX Programming Environment) go here: Systems Software Research Is Irrelevant [bell-labs.com]. It makes many good points about how cs is more the same than different now as compare to 10, 15 even 20 years ago!
Re:Languages (Score:2)
Not really. If anything, Java and C# are logical steps backward, but they certainly aren't successors. Neither of them have anywhere near the level of dynamic runtime, reflexion, meta-programming, or general flexibility that Smalltalk has.
It makes many good points about how cs is more the same than different now as compare to 10, 15 even 20 years ago!
It really hasn't progressed. No language, other than things like multiple inheritance (which was tried in Smalltalk, but ditched) and sugared syntax, really has features that surpass something like Smalltalk-80, a language standardized in 1980. Even then, the research was done in the years previous to 1980. It's kind of sad, really. I watched the Alan Kay lecture tape "Doing with Images make Symbols" again last weekend, and it really illustrates this point; between the Smalltalk group at Xerox PARC, Doug Englebert, and the Flex visual programming language, we've not had any real advances, other than making things cheaper, smaller, and crappier. By crappier, I mean taking Smalltalk and Lisp, and perverting them into the hacks known as C++, C#, and Java.
I Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure - Java, Pythol, C# are pretty similar. But what about Lua [lua.org]? PERL [perl.org]? Or CURL [curl.com]?
Sounds like a case of the "good ol' days".
Re:I Disagree (Score:2)
is it just me (Score:2)
Or is it just that he works for ZD?
Of course, they are all turning compatable (Score:2)
Nearly every programing lanagage is turning compatable (or turning complete). There really isn't much more to say. If you can write the program, you can in any language.
The only exception I can think of is sql, and that was never intended to be a programing language. (although i've not kept up, it might be turning complete by now with extentions I'm not aware of)
Revolutionary devolpment has stagnated, but that is good. House devolpment has pretty much done the same thing, I know people who live in houses 150 years old, and they are contrstured much the same as modern houses. Sure a 2x4 has a standard size now, while it didn't then, but that is a minor evolutionary change, not a revolution. We no better than do write languages the way cobol was written, but the only revolution since cobol is OOA, and there is OO-cobol for those who want it. (there were other evolutions that cobol missed out on, and some would argue that OOA isn't not a revolution either.
Re:Of course, they are all turning compatable (Score:2, Informative)
More (Score:2, Interesting)
It's easy to see the difference here. This article only scratches the "All languages look the same", specially for coders. Maybe for deployers (if you make this separation).
He even let the essential point, for developers, by throwing questions (2) to the air.
Well, let me answer what the article should have touched. It's not the programming language that MS or Sun is controlling, but the tasks to be performed that they are limitating. By making a common programming framework, so widely marketed and, good or bad, soon to be accepted, from Microsoft or not, they are essentially narrowing the solutions that one might come for a problem, since you have to do the 'framework-way'.
Yes, it's good to have a common ground where applications, services and solutions can be distributed. But a lot of problems will arise when you can't (or perhaps should not) use the right tool for the right job.
He is a jounalist, not a programmer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not buy into his "reasoning". When I was in school, they were teaching Scheme and Lisp--make no mistake, what they teach is school is not what will build the future! The programmers who only learned what the professor told them became tech support and helpdesk. In those days, to be a 'real programmer' you had to know assembler and 'C'. They made the big bucks, and all major operating systems and applications were written in them.
Today, things haven't really changed that much. Professors are teaching goofy stuff, programmers get a degree but never learned pointers, and the major software is still written in C. The major difference is the success of C++. Yes, there are lots of Java programmers out there, but really fairly few *major* Java programs. The major OS's and applications are still written in C and C++,rather than assembly.
Of course, in the end, if you learn 'right', what language you use is simply a choice, like a carpenter might use a metal hammer for nails, and a rubber hammer for wooden pegs. The right tool for the job. Today, the jury is out on C# being the right tool for anything, and even Java is still a new fangled gadget that hasn't fully proven itself in the toolbox.
building the future (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He is a jounalist, not a programmer... (Score:2)
Re:He is a jounalist, not a programmer... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is less likely to have bugs, is less susceptible to security problems like buffer overflows, and is fast enough for most things. The major advange of java (imo) is that you can develop complex, powerful programs at a lower cost (eliminate huge class of bugs that need to be tested) and with less maintainence (only the VM needs to be ported, not applications).
Now someone can feel free to call me and idiot and rattle off the results of dozens of benchmarks proving c/c++ are faster, and how the better programmer who programs c or c++ is not likely to make mistakes the aforementioned mistakes like the newbies who program in java.
It still won't change the fact that there's a whole lot of java code out there doing useful stuff, and has been for years now.
Re:He is a jounalist, not a programmer... (Score:3, Insightful)
None.
Java is used all over the place. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies have custom applications using enterprise Java. J2EE is the standard for new systems doing back-end transaction processing. The libraries are mature and very robust. C++ doesn't have anything standardized as part of the language that even remotely competes.
This isn't 1970.
Re:He is a jounalist, not a programmer... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the early 80's, I used many languages in my CS courses: Pascal, Basic, Forth, PDP-11 assembler, 6502 assembler, PL-1, FORTRAN, custom Microcode and Lisp. My classes also focused on fundamental algorithms, so I got exposed to 'pointers' via array inices even in languages that didn't use actual pointers.
When I got to my first job, I had actually never seen a single line of C code. However, using the wide background I had been taught, I was able to get up to speed on C in no time. Within a week, coding in C like a pro.
Hopefully they aren't teaching Java to the exclusion of any other language these days.
Re:He is a jounalist, not a programmer... (Score:2)
bunch of crap (Score:5, Informative)
Example:
Look at some of the other languages that have been ported to the CLR. In every case, those languages have had to lose something important that made them different to fit the common dominator offered by the CLR. Microsoft has brought the notion of skins to programming indeed.
(emphasis mine)
What a gratuitous (and feeble) claim. The author obviously think that about 3 languages exists: C(and friends), Java and VB.
Some functionnal languages have been successfully ported to the CLR, and they didn't need to be amputated for that.
For example, Standard ML [microsoft.com] and Mercury [mu.oz.au]. Both have been succesfully ported to the CLR without violence to those languages.
So, in conclusion, I agree that when you know only 3 procedural/OO languages you might be under the impression that all languages look alike.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Re:bunch of crap (Score:3, Informative)
Also, PerlNET is no blasphemy: you can still write Perl code as you've always had. It will work, you only need a `[interface: pure]' pseudo custom attribute in the interface specification.
Still, PerlNET also supports statically typed variables: they are there as an extension. So of course, the language was not amputated, it was extended to make better use of the CLR architecture.
An interesting thing is that you still can use CPAN modules with PerlNET and they will work.
Question (Score:5, Funny)
oh...
hmmmm....
GOODNIGHT EVERYBODY!!!!!!!
Re:Question (Score:4, Funny)
Orwellian
Shucks (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, well. Another day, another stupid analyst.
Guess it's all where you work (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like this guy's just trying to make a name for himself. To me, it simply appears to be a load of FUD, with no basis in fact (like most FUD).
Java and C are the only languages? Since when? (Score:2)
LISP, Scheme, Prolog? (Score:3, Interesting)
Author seemed to not consider Scheme and Prolog. Meanwhile its not widely used, they find a niche in research community. They use different paradigm, not just a mere different syntax.
It is true that general programming language is dominated by OO-based or imperative based programming language, but things keep improving. Like Java -- it includes features on type safety to some extent. Newer programming languages are designed to ease developers for rapid development phase and overcome various limitations from their predecessors. Thus, developers in turn do have choices: Whether they want to use the newer ones or not.
Since programming languages are designed to ease users, they are specifically designed with as minimal amount of learning as possible. Hence, since virtually all programmers are familiar to C/C++ syntaxes, the design of the new programming languages tend to adopt them in the hope that the language will be quickly embraced. Thus, this explains why the newly programming languages are like C/C++ or using this paradigm.
Now OOP paradigm has "invaded" the market. Aspect Oriented Programming is yet another new concept to supplant the OOP. When better paradigm comes, it will eventually be embraced after it has been proven cost-wise and time-wise worthy. We will witness whether this is true in the near future.
Just my 2c.
Re:LISP, Scheme, Prolog? (Score:4, Funny)
while you've got excellent pointts, your post should of ended there. The author simply didn't consider much of anything. His boss must of asked him to write an article about that newfound TV/typewriter combo thang.
Academics and Real Life (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and don't we all remember computer science departments espousing all sorts of other languages that had no commercial following (AlgolW) or limited mainstream application (Pascal)?
Computer science courses use computer languages for a variety of purposes, such as teaching algorithms, language design and compiler writing, several of which are quite different to the requirements of engineers building substantial systems.
Yes, language B might end up supplanting language A, and if it does you might note in retrospect that computer science courses started using language B before engineers, but you can't make the deduction the other way around.
Just check out how many Java contractors are currently out of work in the UK and compare with C++ contractors.
Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
So today's developers will use one of three languages: Java, C# or VB.Net.
Does anyone else get the feeling this guy has never done any serious programming?
- VB.Net is completely useless for the majority of software being developed. (Personally, I think it's totally useless but I digress...)
- C# hasn't really shown me anything that Java hasn't so I don't really see how it's going to replace C/C++ in places Java hasn't.
- Java... wonderful Java... the same Java that was predicted to take over the world several years ago (much like this article is saying). Now, I personally think Java is great for many things but I also think it's unsuited for many others.
And I really don't see scripting languages (e.g. Perl, Python) going away real soon... and C isn't going ANYWHERE for quite awhile - what language do you think your OS is programmed in? How about your cell phone software? Palm software? I don't see any of these programmed in ANY of the languages the author mentions.
Oh and what about AI? Which of these is going to replace Lisp and other functional languages?
Theoretical Implications (Score:2)
When one can reduce anything to a Turing machine, there isn't anything we can't do with say BASIC that we can now do with C# or Python. It might be faster (to a degree) or more elegant, but still possible.
Perhaps we should focus on pushing the envelope computationally by demanding new models of computation that would break the Church-Turing universiality of computation. Biological or quantum computers have the means to give programmers new ideas that are completely different from what we've already seen - just look at Shor's or Grover's algorithms for quantum computers. These CANNOT be done on a regular computer.
Disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, the writer has donned blinkers and cannot see outside the very limited problem of the quick construction of client-server systems based on reusable components.
Secondly, it really doesn't matter what the implementation language is. It never did. A talented programmer will use what is there. In the course of my career I have used everything from PDP11 assembler to perl by way of Cobol, Pascal, C/C++ and Java. The writer just doesn't seem to appreciate how much code holding the internet together is in languages that are rather more mature and fitter for purpose than the latest craze has a chance to be.
Color me cynical, but I suspect he's only talking about this particular thing because that's the kind of thing that gets convention-goers to bug their bosses to send them to.
Morons. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh my god. Moses handing down tablets from on high? A sweeping statement supported by no figures, no examples. Why will they be dominant? Why will they supplant C/C++?
I would assume that basically all of the Unix market will remain on C/C++/fortran/cobol. Why? Because J2EE and .Net are buzzwords and Unix people have an uncanny nose for sniffing out this kind of crap. And the Unix market is big enough to ensure that your virtual-machine-of-the-month based language "controlling the programming languages market" is always going to be a dream.
And everyone will shop online, and bookstores will go out of business. I'm sorry Matt, haven't you heard of MY object orientated virtual machine based runtime enterprise kidney beans based language? It's called Bollocks# and I think you will be finding it dominating the programming language market this year.
Java is the natural place that people flee to when they can't cope with memory management and pointers. Java is a beautiful language, and the class library is exceptional. But the layers of indirection added through the JVM will always make it slower, and never a language that will replace C++. Just as C++ will never replace C (in the forseeable future), because C++ has its own levels of indirection and safety which slow it down (RTTI, virtual tables, etc). Different tools for different jobs matey, not "one language to rule them all".
Java is easier to learn. Hence you can push out more graduates from Compsci courses with it. Unfortunately, you can't apply those guys to say, kernel programming or embedded systems work because they are clueless w.r.t memory management and the guts of the machine. And when speed is paramount, what is a Java programmer going to do? Turn the hotspot flag on and hope for the best? What if it needs to be *reallly* fast, like "we want operation X under Y instructions on the CPU". You're out of luck. Wrong tool for the wrong job.
Fuck I'm sick of reading this. Another pundit just jabbering off his ideas with only a market analysis background (a poor one at that), not a technical one. I'm sure heaps of IT managers will be reading his column around the world, nodding their heads sagely.
I haven't even had a coffee yet.
So inexperienced, shouldn't be taken seriously (Score:2)
To cite just one example, the author seems never to have heard of the venerable UCSD P-SYSTEM [threedee.com]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
well, no (Score:2)
Beyond that, little has changed in terms of choice. If you don't want to go with the industry standard, you can still program in Lisp, Smalltalk, SML, Ada, Objective-C, or whatever else you fancy.
My god he's right...!!! (Score:2)
Return Line:
Perl -
C -
C++ -
Pascal-
Delphi-
Batch -
My god.... they are all the same!!!!!
Re:My god he's right...!!! (Score:2)
What's really funny about it is that I fscked up on the return line and should be "\n"....
As you see, I program all so often
Uh. Who was this written for? (Score:2, Interesting)
Interpreted languages pushing aside compiled languages for high performance computing? Uh, no, that doesn't follow, and the reason is that if you need the maximum possible speed and efficiency, you don't want the over-head of an interpreter. In other words, if you can get by with using an interpreted language, it is not high-performance by nature. Only by having the luxury of more-than-adequate system performance can you afford to interpret everything.
But, on a different tack, why do we care so much about the languages we use? Why are we so stuck on "my-flavor versus your-flavor"? And more importantly, why is there always this huge push to make one language dominant over all fields? Why can't I just use the language that best expresses my ideas? (if starting a new project ;-)
Re:Uh. Who was this written for? (Score:2, Interesting)
All this replacing of language A with language B is pointless. In a sense, every single language is the same. They're all either compiled or interpreted into something the computer understands, and we, most likely, don't. The main differences are syntax and semantics; The logic behind everything is largely similar. And this brings us back to the CLR mentioned in the article: is it such a bad thing? Everything eventually boils down to the same sets of instructions, so why not completely seperate language from instruction? The syntax of language A might offer advantages over language B for some task, but the task can still be completed either way. It's just a matter of taste. Only where performance absolutely matters do the choices narrow; Outside of that, what gets chosen is what the developer is comfortable with.
methinks you misread that (Score:3, Informative)
Whether this claim has any merit or not is left as an exercise to the reader.
Absurd (Score:2)
Just to close out the whole function language argument that came up the last time .NET and languages came up, here is a link to a paper that was in Dr. Dobbs about a functional language for the .NET platform: http://research.microsoft.com/~emeijer/Papers/Mond rianDDJ.pdf [microsoft.com]
Faulty ARgument (Score:2)
Not quite so... (Score:2)
Even if the syntax is very close from C if you want it to be that way, I've never had the feeling of programming with a language that ressembles any other C based languages.
It's quite powerful, indeed, and gets your projects done in less than anything else I know of, and the environment is just beautiful too.
PPA, the girl NeXT door.
Historican Revisionism (Score:2)
>>Microsoft does.
5 years ago? Strange...... i must have been halucinating when i was running Sun's HotJava web browser on my Sparc10 back in '94.
And before it was branded 'java' it existed as 'oak'.
Not to slag Sun since i think java is pretty sweet, but you'd think in the EIGHT damn years since it first came out they'd have sorted out some of these same platform incompatibilies that plague java developers. "Write once - debug EVERYWHERE".
Well, at least they admitted AWT was a piece of shite and moved on to Swing (which is nice, but a reasource hog).
C++ is not dead... (Score:2, Insightful)
Predictions that the
It is more likely that
Turing Completeness and Virtual Machines (Score:4, Insightful)
The most widely deployed Turing Complete machine/language is a close race beteween Javascript and the Wintel machine code, with Java a distant 3rd. Since there is a problem with reliance on machine code for dynamic installation of software over the network, that leaves Javascript the most obvious candidate in which to write other languages. Most people never thought of Javascript as anything but an afterthought to HTML so they might have their eyes opened a bit to the power of Turing Completeness by seeing the TIBET virtual machine [technicalpursuit.com] written in about a 100K Javascript embeded in a web site's (gzipped) HTML. It gets away with this by dynamically patching (Perl-config style) Javascript incompatibilities and building out from the set of features thereby supported cross-browser.
As I've written elsewhere [geocities.com], this isn't the ultimate language by any means -- but it is a critically needed repair to the foundation of the web that can be followed by more advanced VM's later on.
The REAL problem with developing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Missing a demographic (Score:2, Interesting)
Time for the next step in software development! (Score:2)
Autocoding project proposal [google.com]
If you cannot tell the difference between a three deminsional data array or 3D computer graphic from
3 dimensional Reality, then the Matrix has you. If you are confused about the three deminsions of length,
width and height, then the matrix has you and you don't know it.
But seriously, see the code for what it is, super-impose the nine action constants upon what you do in
coding to find the control points for automating.
As an example of these nine action constants, everybody uses them all when
comming to slashdot, reading and posting comments.
It's physics!
Lets see now:
Switch (AI - alternate/activate interface) - start and stop, change
interfaces - Uh, start up Web Browser and connect. Go to slashdot,
newsarticle, thread....
Apoc (PK - Place Keeper) - keep track of where you are - Pick up where
you left off on the thread..
Tank (OI - Obtain Input - Output to-> Input) - get input - read with eyes.
Mouse (IP - InPut set) - input from - internet and monitor
Dozer (OP - OutPut set) - push output to - via keyboard/mouse to
Slashdot comment posting
Neo (SF - Sequence stufF) - one step at a time - damn this non-polyphonic
qwerty keyboard and mouse...
Morpheus (IQ - Intelligence Quotient) - what's the meaning of the post
I'm reading, what the meaning I want to respond with - within the
(KE'd) constraints of
Trinity (ID - IDentify) - identify posters and forum - hey there is one
by ____ in ____ forum, now I know to be (KE'd) constrained as to
how I respond.
Cypher (KE - Knowledge Enable)- constraints to apply to Morpheus (IQ)
meanings and Trinity (ID) poster named _____ and _____ article.
Needs qualification ... a lot (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree slightly that Java was the logical evolution of C++, because it lost something that the creators of C++ tried very hard to maintain when they "upgraded" C: efficiency. Java, whatever the excuses, is not very efficient, and most developers know it. This is NOT to say C# is much better, but it does leave us wondering why Java, which had such a big head-start on MS, could not have done a better job with the architecture of Java.
that's what I said .. (Score:2)
IMHO the ideal language would have the following: objects/classes, inheritance, polymorphism, private data, public data, NO MEMORY allocation or automatic like perl/Java and a good clean garbage collector (like perl), i.e this leaves out C/C++ as both require either you write a garbage collector or you do the alloc/free. Compiled to executable code, with a fast easy to use GUI IDE for graphics, cross platform capability with NO "if window do this else if mac do that etc. (Java is not compiled to native exe). Also it needs the standard for/next, switch/case, while/do, etc. Visual basic comes close but it is not cross platform compatible. Lastly it needs to be fast. What language do you know of that fits this? Oh and there is more......
What about K? (Score:4, Interesting)
My sole exception to this is a language called K [kx.com]. Yes, it has its roots in APL and has added to the APL model from languages such as Lisp and Scheme, but it has some very interesting new features of its own.
K is very very very fast to write and the run. It blazes in both categories. There is a full relational database that is written in K, called KDB [kx.com]. It crushed Oracle on the TPC-B and TPC-D benchmarks in both speed and storage size, requiring only a few percent above the dataset size in overhead. It has native clustering and replication that allowed it to run on a 50 cpu Linux cluster [kx.com] loaded with 2.5 billion stock trades and quotes and have simple table scans (such as, select max price from trade) take under a second and multi-dimensional aggregations (such as, 100 first desc select sum size*price by sym from trade) take only 10 seconds. Starting the database cluster took a tenth of a second. It is SQL92 compliant, has an extended ultra-powerful query language called KSQL that makes writing queries very simple, and the stored procedure languages are K and C.
In bwk's language benchmarks [bell-labs.com], even though this is not the K strong point [kx.com], the sum of the execution times were: K at 32 seconds, Perl at 95, Java at 300, and TCL above 1400. The lines of code to implement were: K at 9 lines, awk at 95, Perl at 96, TCL at 105, Scheme at 170, VB at 200, and Java at 350.
Yes, K can look like line noise, but unlike Perl, you get alot from this. First you get extreme code density and see the entire problem on the screen at once. I came from a Scheme background and Perl hurt my eyes, so I was very skeptical, but after my roommate persuaded me to look at K harder, I realized that this high code density made it very easy debug and write code. It is rumored that KDB is written in 26 files of code, each file consisting of a single screen of code, labeled a to z. Try doing that in any other language. The language is exceptionally regular. It is so logical and consistent that it takes a little getting used to. You never have to remember any baroque language rules. Anything that makes sense, you can do. Also, even though it looks difficult, it is extremely easy to learn because K is directly translatable to English [kx.com], in fact there is a K program that will do this [kx.com] automatically. For example to split a line by tabs you could write: And this is read: It may take a little getting used to, but with a month of K, my roommate and I were able to converse this way when describing K and you could see the picture developing in your head. It was amazing.
A unique feature of K is what is called the K tree. Unification is a very strong idea in K, so it unifies the idea of object, variables, attributes, namespaces, and dictionaries. A dictionary is a native K type. Each variable lives in a dictionary (somwhat like Python). These dictionaries are joined hierarchically and can be removed and added dynamically. All variables are on the K tree, too, so a new namespace is really just a dictionary on the K tree! This means that you can rearrange the K tree and change what functions get called. This is the most reflective language that I have ever seen (Python, Scheme, and CLisp come in a very close behind). All variables have attributes. All attributes are is a special dictionary attached to the variables (the language is so regular that this is really a namespace with a blank name so to refer to the attributes of a variable you say ns.var..attrib). And, of course, each attribute is just a variable so each of those can have attributes, too.
This interesting K tree leads to a very elegant GUI. Each variable can have an attribute named c (for class), and this can have certain values like `table, `check, `radio, `button, and others (the backtick ` is how you make a symbol). Lets take radio for an example. Then you would have another attribute o (for option) with possible values: These four lines would create a radio box with five choices, zero through four, and everytime you evaluated r whatever the radio was set to, r would evaluate to. Basically, each variable has a direct on-screen representation (they default to `data) and is directly manipulable.
K also has the ideas of dependencies and triggers in the language, so if a..d:"1+b" then refering to a will dynamically calculate 1+b, but only when necessary (if you refer to a multiple times but b does not change between those references, a will only be calculated once and stored; K figures out the dependency graph for you). There are also triggers. If b..t:"a:b-1" then whenever b is assigned or modified then a will get the appropriate value. This trigger can be anything, such as a network operation or a gui command.
The language has some other unique features like an interesting callback oriented interprocess communication system and an on-the-fly optimizing vm.
Of course since it inherits some background from APL it has bulk operators, called adverbs, that modify functions in every conceivable way (much more powerful than APL or Perl). One of the signs of a good K programmer is one who knows how to do this and doesn't use any loops (KDB, the relational database, is written without any loops).
From functional languages K inherits higher-level functions and projections. Both which are very standard practices especially when combined with the bulk operators. b f[a;;c;]'d takes the four argument function f, fixes the first and third arguments projecting a function of two arguments, then applies it to each down the list of argument in b and d.
When you use K you truly are standing on the shoulders of giants. The person who wrote it, Arthur Whitney, has this amazing ability to identify the important pieces of a problem and simplify away the rest. The performance in K and KDB is incredibly; the simplicity and power of the language and the database is incredibly.
K runs on various flavors of Unix and NT, so people should take an open mind (I didn't have one at first and was very skeptical) and really try the language and try a new style of programming. Your code and thoughts on developing will never be the same.
-j
The groupthink here is amazing. (Score:5, Insightful)
There seems to be a tremendously insular mindset here on Slashdot... Java and
The majority of software developers and software development work gets performed today in large corporations in industries like financial, insurance, manufacturing, utilties, pharmaceuticals, defense, real estate, retail, etc. 90% of this work is effectively about writing something that talks to a database somewhere for operational or decision support (reporting) purposes.
The culture of these companies is tremendously insular with regards to technological change. Here's a quick'n'dirty view of what tools are used generally out there, all IMHO:
up until 1998:
C++ (MFC, COM, UNIX), pick a 4GL (VB, Powerbuilder, Delphi), some Perl, tinkerings with Java, some niche technologies (WebObjects, Smalltalk, Lisp), and mainframe legacy (COBOL, fortran, etc.)
past 1998:
more Java, C++/COM going well, C++ UNIX going legacy, VB holding steady, Perl growing, other 4GLs going legacy, niche technologies being replaced with prior mentioned technologies, mainframe legacy being retrofitted for Y2K
2002:
Lots of Java, steady amounts of Perl & PHP, VB is legacy, C++ is legacy (COM and UNIX), some niche technologies remain but are targetted to be 'sunsetted', mainframe legacy systems in place but some are looking to be replaced with Java systems. Growing interest in
ANSI-C doesn't really enter into the picture. The #1 one criteria for choosing a technology in these businesses (usually) is how easy/quick can it talk to a relational database. Java's past performance problems are largely irrelevant today -- this language is running billions of dollars of transactions a day through thousands of companies. It works, and it's fast enough for most purposes.
You may not agree with this picture, but it has been my experience as a senior consultant to many different companies throughout the world, and working for a company that is a Microsoft
Remember: my assumption is that the custom software marketplace is very conservative in the technologies it chooses because of the maintainance costs involved. So you see less diversity in using niche technologies unless a group with complex needs (i.e. an OODBMS in Smalltalk, or an expert system in LISP) shells out the extra $$ to get it done. Most systems just aren't written that way. If I'm wrong on this, if Goldman Sachs or Johnson & Johnson or Royal Dutch/Shell are really building most of their next projects spread over hundreds, if not thousands of developers -- all with ANSI-C, then I sit corrected.
The author of this article is making an important point, though he didn't qualify it properly enough... language diversity is drying up in the custom software development market..
This year, if you look at "growth", i.e. what languages are being used for new projects, there are only three major players: Java (mainly JSP/Servlet based), VB, and Perl (for backoffice automation), with other scripting languages like PHP and Python and Ruby in Japan doing smaller projects.
In 2003, there will be more
50% J2EE
30% VB, C++, Perl, Python, etc.
20%
Eventually
The problem that Java introduced, and one that will be compounded is that if
Sure, many people in this forum will point to implementations of ML, Haskell, LISP and Smalltalk on
I have a great interest in programming language innovations.... life isn't getting any simpler, and our programming languages are going to have to start looking more like Ruby, Python, Smalltalk or eventually even Lisp if we're going to be handling the burgeoning complexity that's out there. I get frustrated when BigCo's set the agenda with their marketing pushes and the industry sits still for yet another 5 years... until the next hype wave rolls through. We're going to have more failed projects, more long hours, and more stressed-out/cynical developers because language design isn't keeping pace with the rising complexity of problems we're trying to solve.
While Java did a lot to bring some innovations like garbage collection to the mainstream in 1996... we should me moving beyond this... unfortunately and
disclaimer: my opinions, not my employer's. take with grain of salt.
Re:All languages are *not* the same (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All languages are *not* the same (Score:2)
VB.NET is not VB
they are just C# with a different syntax.
Scheme has been particularly butchered.
Re:All languages are *not* the same (Score:3)
Well, I program in Lisp and so I do. They're all simple procedural languages with a simple stack semantics with maybe a bit of object wrapping.
Like the Red 'Lectroid from Buckaroo Bonzai said, "Big deal".
Re:Is MS *really* .NET only ? (Score:2, Informative)
Visual Studio.NET includes Visual C++, and it remains the most important of the products (I'm sure it irritates the VC team seeing the marketing droids out in force selling VB.NET and C#.NET when the C++ engine in Visual Studio.NET continues to be improved, with optimization enhancements that further extend its performance brilliance).
Re:Is MS *really* .NET only ? (Score:2)
If not, then I'd say that the C++ engine in VS.NET has a hell of a long way yet to go.
Re:market domination (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep in mind that Java, for example, is very fast as a server-side language.
The real question is: is his assumption correct? Will web services take off to such an extent that the majority of new development is done in these languages?
Re:Lets see here... (Score:2)
Re:OO isn't a language... (Score:2, Informative)
But a true OO language makes these things
easier, by providing special syntax for message passing, enforcing encapsulation, etc. I'd rather write:
somePerson.setName("Foo")
than:
person_setName(somePerson, "Foo")
Re:Skinnable Functionality...what else is new? (Score:3, Insightful)
COM+ tried to do something like this, but there were always some data type and wrapper issues with Win32, and one language or another (usually C++) came out "ahead" not in terms of programmer preference, but in terms of it couldn't technically be used for one reason or another. Well, without some major hackage anyways. For example, firing up the VB6 IDE allowed you to turn around a quick, data-enabled app more quickly than the equivalent VC++ app, though you were stuck with a kludgy language and using previously built DLLs from other languages involved a lot of work. On the other hand, if you wanted to build a system service, C++ made it easier. But if you wanted to write server-side scripting, you were back to bastardized VBScript syntax. Etc. Your question was "how does using a CLR make this any different?", and I think this is one very clear way. Of course, it comes at a small peformance price (and certain C programmers will claim some "dumbing down" or lowest-common-denominator drawbacks have been incurred).
Re:Programming in the US Military (Score:2)
As a former employee of a DoD contractor, I remember (with great pain) the Ada mandate.
Re:Programming in the US Military (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Programming in the US Military (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Programming in the US Military (Score:2, Informative)
I think a few DOD offices still try to push for Ada, but most have accepted defeat. All the new systems coming online in the USMC logistics community are now written in ANSI C.