IEEE Specctrum Announces Top Programming Languages of 2023: Python and SQL (ieee.org) 102
Last week IEEE Spectrum released its 10th annual rankings of the Top Programming Languages.
It choose a top language for each of three categories: actively used among typical IEEE members and working software engineers, in demand by employers, or "in the zeitgeist".
The results? This year, Python doesn't just remain No. 1 in our general "Spectrum" ranking — which is weighted to reflect the interests of the typical IEEE member — but it widens its lead.
Python's increased dominance appears to be largely at the expense of smaller, more specialized, languages. It has become the jack-of-all-trades language — and the master of some, such as AI, where powerful and extensive libraries make it ubiquitous. And although Moore's Law is winding down for high-end computing, low-end microcontrollers are still benefiting from performance gains, which means there's now enough computing power available on a US $0.70 CPU to make Python a contender in embedded development, despite the overhead of an interpreter. Python also looks to be solidifying its position for the long term: Many children and teens now program their first game or blink their first LED using Python. They can then move seamlessly into more advanced domains, and even get a job, with the same language.
But Python alone does not make a career. In our "Jobs" ranking, it is SQL that shines at No. 1. Ironically though, you're very unlikely to get a job as a pure SQL programmer. Instead, employers love, love, love, seeing SQL skills in tandem with some other language such as Java or C++. With today's distributed architectures, a lot of business-critical data live in SQL databases...
But don't let Python and SQL's rankings fool you: Programming is still far from becoming a monoculture. Java and the various C-like languages outweigh Python in their combined popularity, especially for high-performance or resource-sensitive tasks where that interpreter overhead of Python's is still too costly (although there are a number of attempts to make Python more competitive on that front). And there are software ecologies that are resistant to being absorbed into Python for other reasons.
The article cites the statistical analysis/visualization language R, as well as Fortran and Cobol, as languages that are hard to port code from or that have accumulated large already-validated codebases. But Python also remains at #1 in their third "Trending" category — with Java in second there and on the general "IEEE Spectrum" list.
JavaScript appears below Python and Java on all three lists. Java is immediately below them on the Trending and "Jobs" list, but two positions further down on the general "Spectrum" list (below C++ and C).
The metrics used for the calculation include the number of hits on Google, recent questions on Stack Overflow, tags on Discord, mentions in IEEE's library of journal articles and its CareerBuilder job site, and language use in starred GitHub repositories and number of new programming books.
The results? This year, Python doesn't just remain No. 1 in our general "Spectrum" ranking — which is weighted to reflect the interests of the typical IEEE member — but it widens its lead.
Python's increased dominance appears to be largely at the expense of smaller, more specialized, languages. It has become the jack-of-all-trades language — and the master of some, such as AI, where powerful and extensive libraries make it ubiquitous. And although Moore's Law is winding down for high-end computing, low-end microcontrollers are still benefiting from performance gains, which means there's now enough computing power available on a US $0.70 CPU to make Python a contender in embedded development, despite the overhead of an interpreter. Python also looks to be solidifying its position for the long term: Many children and teens now program their first game or blink their first LED using Python. They can then move seamlessly into more advanced domains, and even get a job, with the same language.
But Python alone does not make a career. In our "Jobs" ranking, it is SQL that shines at No. 1. Ironically though, you're very unlikely to get a job as a pure SQL programmer. Instead, employers love, love, love, seeing SQL skills in tandem with some other language such as Java or C++. With today's distributed architectures, a lot of business-critical data live in SQL databases...
But don't let Python and SQL's rankings fool you: Programming is still far from becoming a monoculture. Java and the various C-like languages outweigh Python in their combined popularity, especially for high-performance or resource-sensitive tasks where that interpreter overhead of Python's is still too costly (although there are a number of attempts to make Python more competitive on that front). And there are software ecologies that are resistant to being absorbed into Python for other reasons.
The article cites the statistical analysis/visualization language R, as well as Fortran and Cobol, as languages that are hard to port code from or that have accumulated large already-validated codebases. But Python also remains at #1 in their third "Trending" category — with Java in second there and on the general "IEEE Spectrum" list.
JavaScript appears below Python and Java on all three lists. Java is immediately below them on the Trending and "Jobs" list, but two positions further down on the general "Spectrum" list (below C++ and C).
The metrics used for the calculation include the number of hits on Google, recent questions on Stack Overflow, tags on Discord, mentions in IEEE's library of journal articles and its CareerBuilder job site, and language use in starred GitHub repositories and number of new programming books.
SQL? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to be a little crazy to call sql stored procedures programming.
Re:SQL? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be a little crazy to call sql stored procedures programming.
Even without stored procedures, SQL is Turing complete. You can use CTEs (Common Table Expressions) and window functions to store data and conditionally branch, just like a Turing Machine.
Of course, nobody in their right mind would actually use SQL for that, but technically it can be done.
Re:SQL? (Score:4, Insightful)
Minecraft is also turing complete. And it's pretty popular :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If ts just pure SQL where can it branch to? You need the PL side of it for that (or tsql).
Re: (Score:1)
You don't need explicit branches to be Turing Complete, just some way, any way, to execute conditionals.
Re: (Score:3)
Conditionals aren't nearly enough. A quick automata theory refresher:
At the very bottom of computing machines, we have the humble lookup table. It transforms inputs into outputs, but it's obviously very limited. This is the land of combinational logic. Functions are pure and we have nothing like memory, loops, or conditionals. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Next up would be the finite state machine. We're not longer time-independent and we've got conditionals and loops! This is empowering, but the clos
Re: (Score:1)
> Conditionals aren't nearly enough
I realize that, I was only addressing the statement about conditionals.
Re:SQL? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to be a little crazy to call sql stored procedures programming.
I think you have to be a little crazy to NOT call SQL stored procedures programming, as they're clearly computer programs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SQL? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a view I often see from people whose roles are app-centric. To them, databases are almost an afterthought, just a place to do CRUD operations. That's true for simple cases, but when you have to do real number or data crunching, it becomes clear that SQL skill is not a simple thing to master, and is quite crucial. There are a LOT of apps out there that do a really crappy job of interacting with their databases, for this reason. If your SQL is slow, it's probably poorly written.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe CS theory has changed recently, but almost all the programmers I know will tell you, "Your application should be in your code, not in your database."
Re: (Score:2)
If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
A better approach is to leverage each domain to its fullest.
You wouldn't (or shouldn't) use C++ or C# code to generate HTML. Instead, you divide your application into layers, in which the "view" is likely HTML and JavaScript (of some flavor) and the back end APIs are C++ or C#. Similarly, C++ or C# are an inept tool for managing your data layer. If you're a fan of Entity Framework or NHibernate, I'm sorry to have to inform you that these tools g
Re: (Score:1)
NHibernate is a clone of Hibernate.
It basically can only do CRUD. (Unless you write more complicated queries your self).
There is absolutely nothing slow about it.
As it does not make any difference, if you write:
Select * from articles where ID is %id;
by hand or let it be generated by OORM mapper.
Dumbass. Same code! How can one be slower than the other? Dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
You are exactly right that Hibernate would do exactly the same as
Select * from articles where ID is %id
And this is a problem. In SQL, you should never use Select *, but only select the columns you will actually need. Selecting all the columns wastes bandwidth and SQL horsepower. It might not seem like much overhead if you're just reading from a single table. But as soon as you add a few joins, the number of columns multiplies, and begins to put real drag on performance.
This is exactly what I meant when I sa
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to map the select into an object, it makes not much sense to only select the columns you "think you need". As you would not get a full fledged object ... ...
If you only need 2 or 3 columns, make a helper object and map that to the same table, or to a query involving more than one table/
It is not really hard to use an OR maper with proper SQL
This is exactly what I meant when I said that app developers don't treat databases with respect, they see it as just a different kind of memory.
That is often
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to map the select into an object
And this is the problem with app developers and EF or Hibernate. They see database tables as "objects" and map all the fields. That's fine for memory objects, not so good for databases. Database records are not a good "object" to be serialized and deserialized.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you already explained, an my point is, the explanation does not make sense from a database point of view.
that is exactly what you want 99% of the time
Actually not. Mapping all fields only makes sense when you are actually using all fields in the specific operation which you are performing. So basically, for CRUD operations where you are providing a UI to manage the entire data set. But in nearly all other cases, it's not a good idea.
Take, for example, a User table. You might have username, first, middle, last, email, phone, avatar, password has
Re: (Score:1)
Just lol. Only incompetent programmers aka people who have no clue about databases say that.
You put the code where it belongs.
Makes no sense to fetch a million rows into memory and run C++ or Java code over it to get a result the database would have given you in a fraction of the time.
You are a Programmer? You call 'functions'. Does not matter if that is a library function, a method of another object, a rest call hidden behind a well defined API looking like a function/method/interface or a cal to a DB proc
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, about 20 years ago I did a series of SQL training courses at Learning Tree (which were excellent) and the trainer said almost exactly the opposite.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you could read up what an API is.
Or buy an SQL book.
Or both ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SQL? (Score:5, Informative)
Writing code that interacts with a computer is programming.
Re: (Score:3)
Vast mountains of stored procedures running indescribably large amounts of business says otherwise.
What about it makes you declare it "not" programming?
Re:SQL? (Score:4, Funny)
Vast mountains of stored procedures running indescribably large amounts of business says otherwise.
What about it makes you declare it "not" programming?
It's actually useful and gets the job done without getting bogged down in arguments about favorite frameworks and correct variable name casing
Re:SQL? (Score:4, Insightful)
That might be because most SQL that typical programmers write today, is crap. There is an art and a science to writing SQL well. For typical CRUD operations, you're right, it's not a big deal. But if you deal with very large volumes of data, or you have to do anything more than trivial with SQL, you will quickly learn just how intricate SQL is, and how hard it is to master.
Re: (Score:1)
Ha. I think stored procedures are just as much programming as any other manner of recording step by step instructions are programming. However I know what you are trying to say, it is a little crazy to believe that you can have a system built entirely with just SQL, and that's true, it's not possible to use SQL only to build a system of any complexity, however I have seen people try. Literally entire web applications built with gigantic SQL stored procedures, that spit out HTML and populated web pages wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It *is* programming. Its a turing complete language (At least the better implementations, ie NOT MySQL) that can handle exceedingly complex tasks.
Its NOT a general purpose language, you couldnt write an iphone app, or a website in it, nor would you want to. But it IS a programming language , and to be exact its a DSL, a domain specific language, one with a remarkable amount of DNA in common with Prolog.
Re: (Score:1)
And why is that so?
Writing a C function is not programming, or a Pascal procedure?
SQL is now turing-complete? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or why do we call it a programming language?
Re:SQL is now turing-complete? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:SQL is now turing-complete? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you meant most famous declarative language - that is one where you declare what outcome you want rather than telling the computer how. The dbms finds an execution plan for the SQL and then runs that.
A functional language (like lisp or scheme) is one where everything is composed of functions - and in theory there are no side effects (ie no global variables or common state). The most widely used one is in fact Excel (not the VBA macros, the spreadsheet itself). The functions in cells are treated as first class items (you can refer to a function or a constant in the same way). Evaluation order is determined by the system. The newer versions even include lambda functions (functions that define functions) which are a feature of some functional languages.
Most (all?j functional languages are declarative, but declarative languages are not necessarily functional ones.
Re: (Score:2)
>Most (all?j functional languages are declarative, but declarative languages are not necessarily functional ones.
HDLs (System Verilog, VHDL etc) written as synthesizable code is the pinnacle of declarative and functional programming.
Every logic primitive is a function (and, or, not) and every instance is declared.
Re: (Score:1)
In HDL or C a function is a piece of code. That can be called, e.g.
In a functional language like Prolog or Haskell, functions are data, that can be composed with other data to give new data which then in the end is a function you can call, or in other words provide it with arguments and let it evaluate its arguments.
In other words: in a functional language functions are objects similar to objects in OO languages.
Functions in C or HDL have nothing to do with either.
Re: (Score:1)
That is why SQL statements can be optimized so well.
Not really.
Most DBMSs are not particularly fast because they are general purpose, they must concern themselves with on-disk data structures, a possible caching layer, ACID compliance, and all the things those entail. And the optimizations you usually see aren't any more sophisticated than picking the expression and index that gives the lowest cardinality to start a join. And even then you have to design the schema to have those indexes, the DBMS won't figure this out for you.
Also pretty much every major dat
Re: (Score:3)
Most DBMSs are not particularly fast because they are general purpose, they must concern themselves with on-disk data structures, a possible caching layer, ACID compliance, and all the things those entail.
True, in principal... but most databases also have many, many years of low-level optimizations. So SQL databases will often be able to do things much faster because YOU (in the generic sense, not accusing you, the anonymous coward) don't have the time, budget or skills to optimize your code to the same degree as those database engines. Of course it depends upon your problem and your skills. Custom code tailored to a given problem can always be made to be faster than generic code.
Re: (Score:1)
It is not called '"functional".
It is called "declarative"!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is turing-complete.
https://www.datacamp.com/blog/... [datacamp.com]
What about English as a PL? (Score:1)
Opinions...and here are mine... (Score:1, Informative)
employers love, love, love, seeing SQL skills in tandem with some other language
Well, duh. SQL isn't a programming language, it is a data-access language. Useless by itself, because you are access that data from some program. Similarly, from the other side: if you are working on a system that uses a relational database, you definitely need familiarity with SQL. Even if you don't write statements yourself, you need to understand things like foreign keys and transactions. Even if you use frameworks with built-in ORM, you need to understand these things to make effective use of them.
The
Re:Opinions...and here are mine... (Score:5, Informative)
Not a programming language? What is programming except accessing and operating on data?
> https://github.com/chunky/sqlr... [github.com]
Ray tracing in SQL. I'd say "programming language"
Re: (Score:3)
However, being a script language and not having strict typing still make it unsuitable for serious software development.
PHP scratches it's head at your statement (while pausing from powering almost all of the web).
Re: (Score:3)
PHP is 2-4 times as fast as Python.
Perl is about 4 times as fast as Python.
This wouldn't matter if people stopped doing actual processing in python instead of in libraries attached to it, but they refuse to
Re: (Score:2)
By serious he probably meant threat to company and/or life if something fails even for a few minutes or something that requires milli or microsecond response times. If a web page goes down you just try later. If the avionics in your Airbus or Boeing go down thats a bit more of a problem.
Re: Opinions...and here are mine... (Score:1)
This. Also for any sort of important enterprise software, web-based or otherwise.
PHP is great for running your blog, but I wouldn't suggest running your business with it. Same for Python, or any similar language.
Re: Opinions...and here are mine... (Score:5, Informative)
"PHP is great for running your blog, but I wouldn't suggest running your business with it."
It works for Faceboot. If it can handle their load...
The majority of the world's government websites run on Drupal, which runs on PHP as well.
PHP used to be a bit of a joke, but not so much any more.
Re: (Score:2)
The PH in PHP still applies.
It was a mistake not defining a general language container syntax in HTML. There are better choices that PHP. But since it's the default available inline language in HTML, it's what you have to deal with if you don't like huge stacks of crapware in your web server code.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments don't depend on their websites to function and Facebook isn't going to go bust if their system goes down for half an hour. If a banks trading system is down for half an hour you could literally be talking billions in lost revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
If a banks trading system is down for half an hour you could literally be talking billions in lost revenue.
Then the bank should use a cluster with hot failover, regardless of what platform and programming technologies are used on the back end. But there's nothing about PHP that makes it inherently unsuitable for that mission, there's only good reasons to use other things — and most of those reasons are training-related, while others are due to development ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
" But there's nothing about PHP that makes it inherently unsuitable for that mission"
1) Its not a fucking "mission". I hate this Lets Pretend pseudo military BS speak
2) BY the time PHP had got its arse into gear and processed a single trade it would probably have missed the other 10K
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a fucking "mission". I hate this Lets Pretend pseudo military BS speak
from Latin missio(n- ), from mittere âsendâ(TM).
Calm your knee, it's reacting to nothing.
BY the time PHP had got its arse into gear and processed a single trade it would probably have missed the other 10K
That's conceivable. It's certainly not the fastest thing around.
Re: Opinions...and here are mine... (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure the tech bros got it from latin, along with firewall, DMZ, deployment, foobar and all the other rambo lite BS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and the tech bros got it from playing video games. No doubt a percentage of them think that means they know something, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, SQL is Turing-complete. https://www.datacamp.com/blog/... [datacamp.com]
Lots of languages are useless by themselves. Nobody writes an entire program in JavaScript, it's part of a larger ecosystem of web development. Same for XSL or HTML or VBA.
Tell us the least popular languages. (Score:1)
That way you could show you independence and cover yourself with glory by using something no one else does.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy, it's COBOL. Mind you, it's unfortunately still very diffused, just not very popular.
Re: (Score:3)
That's easy, it's COBOL.
There are languages way less popular than COBOL.
When was the last time you saw a Modula-2 program?
I once worked on a program written in SNOBOL4. That was 30 years ago, and even then, SNOBOL4 was considered a dinosaur language.
Re: (Score:1)
I recently picked up a project that compiled an entire website using M4 macros. There are a lot of obscure things around used in some very critical applications. Given that people are writing LLVM and VSCode extensions to support Modula-2 I think it is rather popular in many environments.
Re: (Score:1)
When was the last time you saw a Modula-2 program?
... Oberon went one direction and Object Pascal the other and Pascal Companies won.
Around 1989
I once worked on a program written in SNOBOL4. I used Icon in the late 1990s. A lose successor of Snobol.
Re: (Score:3)
INTERCAL?
I prefer relational calculus myself. (Score:2)
So much for NoSQL (Score:4, Informative)
Turns out that when you need to do a complex lookup on interrelated data - which unsurprisingly is very common in business - you need a relational language in which to do it and despite all the alternatives and ugly hacks from the likes of mongo, mariadb etc, SQL is still the most elegant way to do it after 50 years.
Re: (Score:3)
MariaDB is a fork of MySQL, is compatible with MySQL, and is, in fact, a SQL database.
As for the NoSQL stuff like Mongo, they serve a purpose and that's why they exist. If you want to build a web app that only needs to store and manipulate a small amount of data, NoSQL probably makes sense.
You seem to be setting up a competition where there isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right about Maria, I was thinking of Cassandra. No doubt there are other DBs with girls name too. Anyway, I have used Mongo and they started to introduce ugly hacks to their javascript interface in order to do relational lookups. Hopelessly ineffecient and ugly but even they realised that you can only go so far with key-value and in document lookups as ultimately users need to interlink data, not just do dumb text searching.
Re: (Score:1)
MongoDB was built for scaling/sharding unstructured documents. People using fun-language when they should use working-language is a big problem, SQL can't really scale/shard easily but it has other benefits, most people don't need to scale to 1B users, yet they build as if they need to.
Re: So much for NoSQL (Score:2)
Distributed SQL queries have been a thing for a while. They just dont call it sharding.
Re: (Score:1)
That's also a lot more complicated and just plain SQL, I wouldn't expect people that join MongoDB to emulate SQL, instead of just using SQL would understand that.
They heard NoSQL is cool and regular SQL is dead, therefore they have to use MongoDB so they can say they are 'cloud scale' and 'web 3.0'. I'm sure most of them could get away with using SQLite.
Re: (Score:1)
Most NoSQL databases have an SQL interface.
And most NoSQL databases, like Cassandra, are for use cases a SQL database is no fit for.
So, what is your point?
MongoDB is not a key value database. It is a document (Json) storage.
You are somehow confused and are mixing stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NoSQL was a terrible idea from the start. That said, memcache, the original KVS still has its use cases. However, trying to bolt query semantics onto a KVS and claiming "it's not SQL, it's an API" was always a fools errand. I can see untangling metic peta-tons of "unstructured" data into normalized SQL schemas becoming big business as companies come to see the limitations of NoSQL.
Re: (Score:1)
Before SQL: all databases were NoSQL.
I can see untangling metic peta-tons of "unstructured" data into normalized SQL schemas becoming big business And why would anyone do that when he just can store it a NoSQL database?
You are confused.
/Users/Angelos/Documents/visastuff/passport.jpg
What is the difference between:
print
Versus:
select from directory Users where user is "Angelos" and subfolder is "Documents" while leave folder is "visastuff" and file is "passport.jpg"
Oh there is none.
But in the NoSQL pathname
meaningless comparison (Score:2)
ORMs are why SQL (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
ORMs are neither black box nor are they magic nor are they creating inefficient SQL.
ORMs are what the name implies: mapping objects in/from an object oriented language to relational databases.
The process is so straight forward, and boring that programmers prefer to have a mapper. The code the mapper is producing: is the exact same code you would need to write per hand. No difference at all.
And for more complex stuff, the non black box ORM (hint: read the RTFM), gives you the option to annotate a C# or Java
Re: (Score:1)
Not "top" - popular (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's slow (Score:2)
I use Python all the time with Raspberry Pi projects but it is no speed demon and seems to consume a lot of memory. An easy language to use though and has great ML libraries. For websites and back-end server work I use Node. Event-driven and super quick.
I've been working with SQL lately as well and it has always seemed clumsy to me. You have to build up a query string using text formatting, which is also no speed demon.
where's the beef? (Score:2)
Which Python? (Score:2)
Because numerous modules became abandonware in the switch from 2 to 3. When their developers did the mimimum work needed to get them to load under 3 and then dropped support to go work on "cool stuff".
Gnu radio comes to mind.
MySQL Ray Tracer (Score:5, Informative)
For everyone arguing if SQL is a "programming language" or not, I give you the MySQL Ray Tracing Engine: https://demozoo.org/production... [demozoo.org]
And really, does it matter if it is "turing complete" or not to be considered a programming language? The entire intent of "programming" a computer is to feed it a set of instructions to perform a particular action and optionally return a result. We need to get away from these archaic gatekeepery ideas of what "programming" a computer is.
Just as a reminder, at one point, C was considered NOT computer programming, because it was a "high level" language that doesn't match exactly what the hardware is doing, and relied upon an assembler to generate machine instructions. And yet, here we are, with things like Python that isn't being questioned if it is or isn't a programming language, which doesn't even translate directly into machine instructions, rather acting via an interpreter.
Re: (Score:1)
For many decades SQL was not turing complete.
No one cared.
We jokingly told everyone: no it is not a programming language, it is a query language.
But obviously in terms of computing, it is a programming language and always was. What about Bash? Or JCL?
You could argue that old HTML is no programming language.
But bottom line every text a human writes and a computer is interpreting or a computer program is interpreting is in the end: a programming language.
You "encode" something, the machine decodes, decyphers
SQL is Turing complete and a programming language. (Score:2)
That must mean Factorio's combinators are also a programming language.
Re: (Score:2)
"That must mean Factorio's combinators are also a programming language."
https://www.reddit.com/r/facto... [reddit.com]
Was there ever a doubt?
AI? (Score:2)
AI is being programmed in Python?
So let's see, if you write a one line program in Python that calls an AI library you are programming AI in Python?
Re: (Score:2)
Interpreted languages should remain that way and focus on quick and dirty automation and interconnection.
Scripting should be the GLUE between components. Automating tasks which are largely done by REAL languages with tons of compiling bloat to make sure everything is as correct as possible.
It's programming but should be constrained and considered differently... call it scripting instead of programming if you want a distinction... and we should because a professional CS programmer really shouldn't be lumped
Re: (Score:2)
If I press the accelerator and move the steering wheel, am I really driving a car?
All the heavy lifting is being done in C++ but you are interacting with that in python commands.
What AI library uses only one command?
Rust? (Score:3)
Poor Rust, it lost out to both Shell and HTML in all three categories. Oh well, at least it consistently beat out Fortran and Cobol.
Re: (Score:2)
HTML was invented in 1993. Much as I hate Rust, invented in 2006. Come back in a decade and review your comment.
Survey of IEEE members (Score:3)
This definitely skews the statistics.
Pronoun (Score:1)
Can someone tell me what SQL is the SQL to? Like what was the original language for it to qualify as a "SQL"?
Guess I'm positioned for devops (Score:2)
Just lol at the summary, seriously? (Score:1)
That is why no one takes the US serious anymore: " Ironically though, you're very unlikely to get a job as a pure SQL programmer."
It is not called SQL programmer. It is called Database Administrator or DBA.
Those guys are worth their weight in gold.
Re: (Score:2)
>Those guys are worth their weight in gold.
True, and yet they still hate developers :)
Typo in your headline (Score:2)
As published: IEEE Specctrum Announces Top Programming Languages of 2023: Python and SQL
should be...
IEEE Spectrum Announces Top Programming Languages of 2023: Python and SQL
Yeah, yeah, spelling matters. It's hard to be the word police.
csw
Re: (Score:1)
Many embedded Python libraries either use C-native libraries or transpile to C to run on embedded devices. Nobody is running the Python interpreter on 128kB RAM.