Slashdot Mirror
What Makes a Programming Language Successful?
danielstoner writes "The article '13 reasons why Ruby, Python and the gang will push Java to die... of old age' makes an interesting analysis of the programming languages battling for a place in programmers' minds. What really makes a language popular? What really makes a language 'good'? What is success for a programming language? Can we say COBOL is a successful language? What about Ruby, Python, etc?"
Is directly proportionate to the amount of /. posts talking down on it.
Fact.
I thought it was the beards on the creator(s) of the language that determines the success?
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Portability and scalability are what win it for me, I like to write my code once and it's got to be powerful enough to deliver a complex solution.
Procrastinators, Unite Tomorrow!!
Java's well organized, has a great standard library and is (mostly) consistent with itself. Its only problems, as far as I can see, was that it was initially slow and that it marketed itself as a web language, when there were better choices for that.
Disclaimer: I've only coded in Java since 1.5.
What Makes a Programming Language Successful?
those who don't know how to use it.
The lack of type-safe variables, the possibility to write unreadable code, hunt for bugs that are caused because two files are incompatible. Interpreting languages has been tried before, and they are never working for large projects that shall live for a long time and has to be maintained by a lot of different programmers.
Java may be a bastard of Ada, but at least it has some type checks built in. However, it's a bit weak on the side where the user can't control memory management in a good way. Another weakness is that methods can't be declared to allow/disallow the return of 'null' values to be detected at compile-time.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Power: What can it do?
Performance: How fast can it do it?
Ease of Development: How fast can quality code be turned out by regular programmers?
Most modern languages fail on a couple of these. C is first class in Power and Performance, but it's not Easy. Ruby is okay in Power, and its very Easy, but it's slow. Java is Powerful, but doesn't match C for Performance, and it's not the quickest for development.
I'm sure many fanboys will disagree with my analysis. They'll say "Regular programmers don't matter (C)" or "It's NOT SLOW (Ruby)" or "Development is too quick! (Java)".
Really though, that's what it comes down to. The problem is, that there are unfortunate tradeoffs that have to be made. Most languages have a strength, but they all make sacrifices to be strong.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I think many people fail to recognize that the average age of software engineers has gotten higher and that many have realized that most of the pitfalls in software development have little to do with the language chosen. I would rather concentrate on good engineering practices and refining familiar modules I have developed than learn a new language.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Not to sound too much like Obi Wan, but many of the truths we cling to depend a great deal on our own point of view and all that.
If I was working for O'Reilly, Manning, APress, Wiley, et al I'd say a successful programming language was one which sold lots of books.
If I was a hiring manager for a large software company, I'd look closely at what language allowed the most cheap new grads to work together an produce something resembling quality code.
If I was teaching intro to computer science, I'd worry about what was preparing my students for the rest of their education.
If I was teaching a certificate-level course to people looking to get into the job market quickly, I'd look for the language with the highest placement rate.
If I was a person of little clue, I'd go largely by the hype. Some would go with the mainstream hype, and some go with the counter cultural "that's the big hype, but our language is better" underdog hype.
As a programmer, I prefer the language that helps me turn customer requirements into working programs that fastest with the least fuss on my part, and allows decent maintenance and customization later.
As the owner of a small boutique programming shop, I want my expressive, powerful language to give me an advantage over others using less expressive languages. I'd like to find others who can use it, but a few is alright as I don't need a huge team to work on programs.
Every program on your screen and your OS was written in C/C++
I review code for security flaws for a living. I am a pioneer in this field and have literally written the book on it (the OWASP Guide and the OWASP Top 10 2007). I've been doing secure code reviews for the last 10 years.
.NET. I haven't reviewed a .NET application this year.
.NET a very distant second.
I've reviewed 400-500 applications (it's unclear to the total number, but I usually do a review every other week, some shorter, some longer).
I've never reviewed a Ruby application or been asked to review code written in that language. I have been asked to review a Haskell application.
I have reviewed:
* 85-90% Java, usually with shell and ant scripts and occasionally some Perl. Some *years*, this is the only language I am asked to review.
* 5-10%
* 5% COBOL. Primarily as a side line - there's a lot of old code to review, but most folks never do.
I've reviewed three PHP applications professionally, all in the last year, even though this is my preferred language to write stuff.
Java is overwhelmingly used in large commercial settings for high value applications, with
I don't get to review that many COBOL or other mainframe apps. I've been doing ground breaking research in this area as there's no advice today. There is a false belief that this code is somehow "safe" as it resides on the mainframe. Nothing could be more wrong.
Ruby and Python, although interesting langauges, has zero commercial penetration, even for worthless brochureware or community apps.
What they do have is an extremely loud fan base. These languages will not kill COBOL or Java any time in the next forty years or so as the fan base is fickle and will move on to the next big thing when it comes along.
Andrew van der Stock
Jesu effing Christo.
One thing ain't got nothing to do with the other.
I can't decide which is worse, this particular bit of idiocy or the all-to-common: "dynamic vs strong typing" arguments.
Actually, maybe I'm being to hasty.
The conflation of runtime implementation details with language capabilites, or the above-mentioned typing confusion, does provide a quick and easy way to tell that someone doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Don't count out the "dead" languages... IBM estimates that more than 30 billion transactions occur within Cobol programs every day. By contrast, Google averages about 150 million searches each day, or about .5% of Cobol's daily workload.
Rather than a "gee I need a cool website for my mom" choice, perhaps the number of transactions or dollar value would be a better count.
Cobol would probably win, followed by java and the Microsoft languages (C++, C#).
I just started at a new job at the beginning of this year after quitting from my last job where I barely got to do any programming. The place where I work now is a Java shop. I was getting back to Java programming after a hiatus of a few years. For the last few years I mostly doing Perl with a smattering of C (PHP and Javascript on occasion). My experience with Java was mainly from college and a few odd projects I did here and there. The language had changed quite a bit over the last few years and to be honest, I surprised myself by being happy to get back to it (I had some sort of vague dislike for it for a period of time).
The company sponsored a trip to JavaOne at San Francisco earlier this month, for the Dev Team. I also got to go. This was my first time at JavaOne. It was amazing, exciting, and I learnt a LOT of new stuff. The main thing I got from there was that Java, far from being a programming language, is also a platform. There are a lot of new things being built on TOP of Java. For example, Groovy, and JavaFX. Java now has excellent support and frameworks to roll your OWN domain-specific languages.
Python and Ruby are not going to push Java out of the way. For example, you have mergers of Java with these languages (Jython and JRuby). Essentially you have Python and Ruby using Java resources and libraries. I think instead of "dying", Java is just going to evolve into a stable platform that lets you build stuff on top of it.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
TFA: "Some languages made strange mistakes. For example Python is a great language but the idea of using indentation as block demarcation really is a cannon ball chained to its feet. While most of the pythonistas defend this idea with a lot of energy, the truth is this feature makes it really a dangerous tool in big, world wide distributed projects - and most important enterprise projects are big and distributed."
Elsewhere: "Python Creator Guido van Rossum now working at Google"
Well. Now I finally know how Google is dangerous.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
What makes a programming language successful?
Same thing that makes a religion successful. Adherents.
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Obviously there's more than one factor to a language's success, but the breadth and quality of the libraries and application frameworks is a huge factor - if you "know a bit" about programming then I'd say that learning your way around a new API is just as much work as learning a new language.
A big plus for C was that it always came with a substantial standard ("de-facto" to start with, then ISO) library based on the Unix API so it was great for writing portable programs - c.f. Pascal where ISTR the core language couldn't even open a named file. C++ was largely popularized by application frameworks like MFC and OWL, and Delphi did the same for Pascal.
PHP is pretty fugly as a language but comes with a huge library of functions and add-ons that are just what the doctor ordered for web scripting - and when people talk about Ruby, do they really mean Ruby or do they mean Rails?
I don't know about Python - it seems to be a secret society rather than a language and you can't join unless you pass this initiation test where someone tells you a corny joke (stolen from an ancient email circular about Unix and Makefiles) about a language which uses leading whitespace to delineate blocks. I always laugh and fail the test, so I've no idea what the real language is like. :-)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Ironically the biggest problem I've had with Java is that, because it is relatively easy for developers to write code using an IDE such as Eclipse or NetBeans in the core language itself, but there are tons of various classes even within the core JRE, many programmers I know who write Java have created a sort of "ecosystem" of artificial complexity.
For example, I worked on one project which was a client/server system which handled maybe 10 transactions per second, with each transaction translating into maybe one or two table updates. The application could have been put together using something simple, like Tomcat and MySQL on the back-end, and something easy to use like an XML/RPC link to the client side. (There were only something like 10 remote procedure calls being made, and this was an internal application, which means the total audience was perhaps 100 people.)
But rather than keep the whole thing simple, we had a whole bunch of "Architecture Astronaut" wannabes who started tossing in third party frameworks like there was no yesterday, without carefully thinking if the framework was needed, and if so, how best to integrate the framework. Before we knew it, the server was broken into 8 separate EJBs, Hibernate and Spring were called in to handle the server side coding framework, and the entire build process was so complicated it no longer could be run or debugged within an IDE--apparently someone on the project didn't understand ant and used makefiles for part of the build. And to top it off, because so many different frameworks were thrown in for no good reason I can determine (there were something like 40 third-party jar files in the build directory), there were all sorts of runtime problems as each jar file was not designed or tested on the full range of Java 1.4 - 6.0 environments.
Now if this was my first exposure to Java, I'd say that while the core language itself wasn't bad, the entire Java ecosystem sucked hard core. But no; it was the developers: rather than keep it simple, they used the 'refactor' button in NetBeans about 100 times too many, until what should have been a one person-three month job turned into half a million lines of crap, that, to their credit, limped along okay.
John McCarthy did. They were inventors of COBOL, FORTRAN and LISP - three languages still in use from the 1950s.
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
yeah, you know, 'cause when you have 50 programmers on a project, C l33tnesses like
while (x-->0) { blah; }
are so cool and easy to understand. and malloc()s make memory management so easy and cross-platform. and clustering is for wussies, if you need more than a core2duo on Linux, is because you're unl33t or because you need to do some routines in über-ELITE assembler.
now when you program in Java you forget all that crap, you just code. need a bigger app? J2EE it and run it on a cluster. add nodes a needed to keep performance. node dies? no problem, J2EE takes care of it.
migrated from mysql to Oracle or DB2? no problem, just let Hibernate know about it.
tired of Windows Server and want to run opensolaris, linux or OS X Server? no problem, just drop your EAR/WAR on the new server and relax. it's working.
wanna add more coders to your project? point 'em to the javadoc and let they read through the verbose (and thus self-explaining) code.
strong typing is there to keep you from doing stupid things. you can always tell what the program IS going to do in all situations, because you HAVE to specify all situations.
but you're too cool for java. lemme know when banks switch their systems to LAMP and we'll talk.
Java isn't going to die any more than C. Nor will Python or Ruby die any time in the foreseeable future.
Anyone can play Devil's Advocate and make one language look better than another from some point of view, but the fact is, different languages have their different pluses and minuses. I'm sure Ruby and Python have their pluses, but I don't see them being used NEARLY as much as Java. And take into consideration that Ruby has been around just as long as Java and Python has 4 years on both languages. If they were going to kick Java's ass, it would have happened by now.
I suspect the article is wishful thinking (though I can't read it 'cause the site didn't survive this post). I don't know why people have to make such a big deal about this stuff anyway. Languages evolve and new languages and paradigms will be created in the future. Computer programming is still in its infancy. There's a good possibility that 20-30 years down the road, none of these languages will be around. They may be completely replaced by some far more powerful paradigm we can't even imagine yet.
These kinds of predictions are old and pointless.
What's wrong with Java? Sure I can't slap together a web 2.0 site in 1 day like I could with .net 3.0 or Ruby, but they can't enable a high availability transactional based middle ware system. Java has so many great uses beyond simple web apps, it will always have a place in the enterprise and mobile devices.
You may find my appearance and demeanor foolish, but it is you who plays the fool.
> And repeat smart things like not treating arrays as first-class entities?
> Honestly, C is full of design errors.
Come back when you know how the computer works, grasshopper. C doesn't treat arrays as "objects" because the computer doesn't do that. If you want higher level abstractions, use C++, where you have the nice vector class that does what you want.
Consider a much earlier example of a math-like language: APL. It allowed concise programs and elegant expression (especially of mathematical ideas, like matrices); it ran in the then-mainstream environment (IBM mainframes); and, it was sponsored by the industry's 800-pound gorilla. And it was the best language for creating write-only programs that I have ever encountered -- think Perl with an extra helping of math and a non-standard character set thrown in. The worst programming assignment I ever had (although I did complete it successfully) was debugging and fixing a financial modeling package written in APL. My take on it was that the programmers who had written it originally fell mainly into two categories:
- Those who were confused by the syntax and concepts
- Those who used the syntax in a contest to see who could be "cutest"
Neither is really what you want going on in an important enterprise-level project.It's hard not to turn this discussion into a war and I do believe that even from a qualitative perspective, this discussion is entirely subjective. Let me preface my comments by saying I work primarily in C#, Java, Ruby, and Python in my job, and previously was a C, C++, Fortran, and Assembly programmer. I know about a dozen more languages as well, so I feel I've at least had exposure to many languages to guage success from a developer's point of view. Generally, I think being good at a certain job/task makes a language successful. There is a corollary that one should pick the best tool for the job, not because it's the "best" language. C++ is successful because it was very fast at the time, had a lot of features people wanted, and was relatively easy to learn. Would I do a web page in C++ these days? Probably not.
If I had to pick a language to discuss and deem successful, it would be either Smalltalk or Lisp. Some people find either of those esoteric or "weird," but I rather enjoy writing code in both. Interestingly enough, in many respects neither language is particular successful in a commercial sense, but very much so for most implementations.
I'll stick to Smalltalk because it's a good example for this discussion. It's a case where popularity in my mind is not equal to success. Smalltalk works because it is simple (there are really only 6 keywords or so and not even really keywords at that) and is designed impeccably. If success is related to imitation and admiration, then Smalltalk is up there. Of course in itself, the language is derivative, but it's well-known enough to claim/steal credit for one of the best implementations of existing ideas. I have to laugh at other languages, especially Ruby, Python, C#, and Java as they are adding language features or libraries that emulate things that have existed in Smalltalk for 20+ years. That's rather laughable, but also an indicator of success.
As the Smalltalk saying goes, "Files? How quaint." The language just proves you can design something successful by simplifying and focusing on enabling people to design and use their brains. I feel like I can focus on code rather than language constraints. Smalltalk coding is like teaching them to farm rather than giving them food. There are obvious merits to both approaches. The fact that the language is still around 20+ years later and gaining momentum speaks volumes.
I think what makes it unsuccessful is that a lot of people have no idea it exists in the first place and how it really works. They might look at it and say, "yeah that looks something like Ruby, so what's the point." Usually I find it's lack of understanding of not only Smalltalk, but the fact that the development environment in many ways is the language. Most Smalltalk implementations simply don't have the problems in file-based languages like disorganized code, "too many classes," etc. So many of the plights in other languages don't happen in Smalltalk because of the design and that to me is success, regardless of the number of commercial installations.
Another issues that has halted the language's success in commercial spaces has been ugly UI. Until recently, most implementations have looked awful. Squeak used to look like a child's toy without customizations (still does to some degree, but there's 100s of customized images floating around the internet now). Visual Works looks like an ugly ms-app sometimes, but is a huge leap over the past. Gemstone Smalltalk has no real UI (but can use Squeak). The list goes on, but the point is that even in dev environments, eye candy has a big influence.
It gets even weirder when you look at Smalltalk and languages from the perspective of supporting products. Databases are probably the biggest, and Smalltalk can work with just about everything, but the simple support for the RDBMS is pitiful compared to most popular languages. Especially in recent years, a lot of that has to do with the Smalltalk view. In the Smalltalk world, it seems stupid not to use an object database at this poin
I'll take any language that can let me write, read, and understand as fast as the speed of computers is progressing, i.e., exponentially.
I don't give a crap if language xxxxxxx is more efficient, more hardcore, etc. You know why?
Because I don't want to spend a year writing an application in C for efficiency and find out at the end that for a mere $1,000 I could have written the same thing in Python in a month and just bought a faster computer 11 months later.
YOUR time is linear, while the computer's is exponential. You'd be a fool to not take advantage of that and, frankly, type safety, efficiency, platform independence, programming style, power, etc. etc. can all go to hell. Just give me a beautiful language.
I was on an old dial up bbs once having a fierce argument and was deep into a paragraph lambasting my foe, when a nearby thunderstorm injected about 4 lines of pure static garbage characters into my text, and the techy walked by, glanced at my screen and said "taking up perl?"
So, basically, what you're saying here is: GET ON MY LAWN! or something like that?
hands down, if your programming language doesn't have a GOTO statement, it is a miserable failure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am completely confused as to how the author can even ask the question "Is COBOL a success?"
Is COBOL old? Certainly.
Is COBOL outdated? Yes.
Has COBOL since been replaced by better languages? Yep.
Would you be insane to start a new, large, application from scratch using COBOL? Of course.
But "Is COBOL a success?" Without doubt, yes. Countless millions (perhaps) billions of lines of production COBOL code are still in use. It is still the core behind many of the applications that run our day-to-day lives. These applications have been running for decades with downtime records that would put an average "Web 2.0" app to shame.
Certainly, IBM deserves a lot of credit for this, maintaining pure 100% backward compatibility for those apps for the last forty years or so, but some credit is due to the language itself.
SirWired
20 GOTO 10
As you can clearly see,
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
BASIC and Pascal are procedural.
as is SQLSQL is declarative.
LISP, SCHEME and SMALLTALK were all developed when space was at a premium. so, you kept the source file small by using as obtuse-as-possible a syntax.That's not why they're that way at all.
Python's a great language, but that's no reason to get sloppy about the details.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I agree. Procedural programming is the fundamental problem. Arguing about which procedural language will succeed is like Neanderthals arguing which kind of stone will succeed the one before it. And OO languages are procedural languages in disguise. As Anonymous Coward says, we need to get out of the procedural trap. This is why programs have so many bugs. Let's stop hacking and looking for the next great tool, the next fad, and what our friends are using. Let's look at what approach is truly best.
Not every big library is bloated. It's only bloat if it has a poor size to functionality ratio.
For example libc is small, but it does not include XML parsing, HTTP support, SHA1 and MD5 sums, the ability to read compressed files etc. Sure there are libraries for that, but you have to pick and add them yourself. So libc is small not because it is amazingly efficient, but because it is limited in scope.
Personally, I like big standard libraries like Java and Python have. You pay for it in the initial install, but once that is in place, your application has access to a huge amount of functionality without having to add a lot of external dependencies.