Slashdot Mirror


10 Forces Guiding the Future of Scripting

snydeq writes "InfoWorld examines the platforms and passions underlying today's popular dynamic languages, and though JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Groovy, and other scripting tools are fast achieving the critical mass necessary to flourish into the future, 10 forces in particular appear to be driving the evolution of this development domain. From the cooption of successful ideas across languages, to the infusion of application development into applications that are fast evolving beyond their traditional purpose, to the rise of frameworks, the cloud, and amateur code enablers, each will have a profound effect on the future of today's dynamic development tools."

31 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Don't forget synergy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And twitter.

  2. 10 forces? by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Funny

    though JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Groovy, and other scripting tools are fast achieving the critical mass necessary to flourish into the future

    I didn't read the article, but from the summary I'll assume one of the forces is gravity.

    It's too bad it's such a weak force.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:10 forces? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was a perfectly good joke, until you came and spoiled it!

    2. Re:10 forces? by pimpimpim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A quick skim over the bloody summary shows that this is a "don't read the f-ing article" if there ever was one: "co-optation", "infusion of application development", "fast evolving beyond their traditional purpose", "the cloud", "code enablers".

      I use perl daily, python when I need OO, and hack together most time-savers with bash. Like people did before me since the Bourne shell came out in 1977, and the more complicated scripting languages after that. In 30 years, people will probably still be doing the same. The only thing that might change is that more and more programs that are not depending on performance, might be completely written in scripting languages. As far as my work is concerned, the factor 20 or more speedup I get by actually programming in C will always be of use. It's not like we want to do the same with tomorrow's computing capacity as we can do now, we want to do more!

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  3. Fast javascript by cornicefire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone know of a project to bring some of the fast Javascript implementations like V8 to the server? It could be like PHP or Perl, only very fast-- if the numbers hold out. I would like to write in the same language on the client and the server. (Java almost achieved that...)

    1. Re:Fast javascript by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Java HAS achieved that. See Google Web Toolkit - it compiles Java to _JavaScript_ which is executed inside your browser.

      IMHO, it's THE best toolkit for rich AJAX applications now.

    2. Re:Fast javascript by brezel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, it can be useful if you write a fairly sophisticated filtering function to make sure that someone doesn't input the wrong answer. You can run it on the client, but it might make sense to run it at the server at other times.

      i totally disagree here. i would NEVER run any validation code on the client.

      still eager to follow the upcoming comments ^^
      rgds from vienna (no, the one in yrp XD)

    3. Re:Fast javascript by cornicefire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, yes, you can't trust the client. But there's a big advantage if you can run the validation code there before the person runs submit. That saves the load on your server and it makes everything more responsive for the user. (Javascript, no matter how slow, is usually faster than a roundtrip on the Internet.)

      But still you can verify on the server too-- another argument for running the same code on the server and the client.

    4. Re:Fast javascript by aproposofwhat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i totally disagree here. i would NEVER run any validation code on the client.

      I sort of agree - but I'd phrase it as "I'd never rely solely on client-side validation".

      I get your point, though, and would mod you up if I had points tonight.

      Gruss Gott von England :)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    5. Re:Fast javascript by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The safari javascript engine is called SquirrelFish (And there's also SquirrelFish Extreme, which compiles javascript into machine code, with predictable speed increases.) and it is open-source as it's part of webkit.

      http://webkit.org/

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Fast javascript by ushering05401 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Everyone here is assuming persistent connectivity.

      Client apps should always be written with the ability to dress, validate, and temporarily persist data before attempting to transmit, then the server should double check everything. Rejecting data on the server side, while necessary to prevent malicious injections, will always cost bandwidth or worse - it costs time if the client cannot reconnect for a set period to respond to results of server side validation.

      Even if you don't care about bandwidth, reducing the need for client side modifications after the initial submit just seems wise.

      If you are clever you might even omit a few key rules from your client side validation, leave an opening. Analyze any input that trips those rules on the server side for an ad-hoc Honeypot/Canary-in-the-Coal-Mine.

    7. Re:Fast javascript by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Funny

      I too, would like to write server side code in the same language as the client side code... I just wish it would be the client side that would change. That way I wouldn't have to touch javascript ever again.

      Now, now, now, there's nothing wrong with JavaScript that smoking a little crack while severely hung over can't fix.... :-D

      But seriously, client-side PHP would totally rock. Or heck, I'd settle for a universal bytecode runtime standard that we could compile Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, etc. into for execution on any client. Kind of like Java, but without... you know, Java....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Fast javascript by destiney · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ruby on Rails' RJS templates is exactly that. You write Ruby that is translated into Javascript calls. I've written a number of Javascript-driven Ruby on Rails apps without ever having written a single line of actual Javascript. You get a "page" object which represents the DOM, simple as can be.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=rjs+templates

    9. Re:Fast javascript by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why not?

      Why have a round trip back to the server to find the error. Have the client notice it and report it without having the user submit and wait.

      Obviously, you do the same check on the server with the standard round trip "you did this bit wrong, please try again" response.

      So you would NEVER do that? Seems a strange religious believe to hold.

  4. hey ho. by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I write embedded firmware for my job (predominantly C) - my code is tied to the hardware, I frequently code real-time stuff in assembler to get the maximum speed. I have no OS, and I write all the ISRs and schedulers myself.

    On the other end of the spectrum is a friend of mine who is language and platform agnostic. Sways between a bunch of scripting languages on a number of operating systems and has probably never compiled an application in his life, interpreters are his tools.

    My point - if there is one - is that each to their own, there will always be a requirement for different skill sets. In a way, software is software regardless of the language it is coded in. The same rules apply.

    I love doing clever stuff with pointers (except when it goes wrong in style), and using neat mathematical tricks in assembler to speed up fixed divisions and run stuff faster - but as the same time when knocking up a test rig on a PC I can honestly appreciate stuff like a "foreach".

    Hey ho. Ramble Ramble.

  5. All... most... there... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Perl ... and other scripting tools are fast achieving the critical mass necessary to flourish into the future

    Ya, once Perl is used in a few more places, it'll have critical mass.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Pure scripting: Lua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised there was no mention of Lua. Besides Javascript, Lua is probably the most widely used scripting language out there. Usually its use is hidden from the end-user but it's in everything from embedded devices to World of Warcraft.

    It has a very simple design and is very fast (especially with LuaJIT). The semantics are similar to Javascript but Lua is a lot more pure and simple. There probably will never be a Javascript engine as fast as the fastest Lua engines.

  7. Clueless. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Larry Wall nabbed Python's object system when he created Perl...

    Erm, WTF? Perl was released in 1987; Python was 1991.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Clueless. by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Informative

      I assume they mean some flavor of Perl 5, since the Perl didn't have objects prior to Perl 5. And Perl 5 released several years after Python.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:Clueless. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm guessing that he meant to say " when Larry Wall decided to add an object system to Perl". As the Objects weren't added until 1994. So that's when the nabbing probably occurred. Well, either that or Larry Wall has an unpublished update to Physics::Lorentz.

      perl history

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:Clueless. by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      'I assume they mean some flavor of Perl 5, since the Perl didn't have objects prior to Perl 5. And Perl 5 released several years after Python.'

      Indeed. According to Larry:

      'After Tcl came Python, which in Guido's mind was inspired positively by ABC, but in the Python community's mind was inspired negatively by Perl. I'm not terribly qualified to talk about Python however. I don't really know much about Python. I only stole its object system for Perl 5. I have since repented.'

  8. Re:Religion by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Funny

    Most human wars throughout the ages are based on religion. Scary, isn't it?

    You think that's scary, you should've seen the camel wars.

  9. Re:this guy didn't do any research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    From Larry Wall's 2007 State of the Onion:

    I'm not terribly qualified to talk about Python however. I don't really know much about Python. I only stole its object system for Perl 5. I have since repented.

  10. "Co-optation"?? by jamrock · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh. My. God.

    A million grammarians cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

  11. Re:Computer languages evolve like natural language by siride · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As someone with a BA in Linguistics, I call BS on the natural language part of your post. The biggest mistake you have made is that you failed to distinguish between written grammar guides, and an actual grammar for a language, which is in each person's head and is quite complete and well-formed. So much so that we have yet to fully elucidate the complexities therein.

  12. Re:Computer languages evolve like natural language by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Informative

    "It wasn't until the Europeans discovered Sanskrit in the 18th century until European languages had any formal grammar."

    Well, sure... It's only that the first printed greek grammar is from 1453; the first modern grammar, the Spanish one from Nebrija, dates from 1492; the first Italian one, that of Trissino, is from 1529, the Portuguesse one from Fernando de Oliveira is from 1536 and the French one from Louis Meigret was published on 1550.

  13. Still Clueless by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, I read the rest of the article, to see if he got anything else right. Well...

    But will PHP be able to shake the casual structure that encourages beginners to whip up spaghetti code? Will it be able to continue to mix the presentation layer and the application layer without driving everyone insane?

    It's true that PHP encourages this, and I find it a little disturbing that people are building web frameworks in what is essentially a Turing-complete template language. It would be as if the next big thing was written in PostScript.

    But in a larger sense, this isn't nearly as relevant as how you use it. Drupal is proof that you can do good things with PHP.

    However, I do prefer to work in a language that helps, rather than hinders, such a design.

    Some want to place their bets on Ruby on Rails, a striking and elegant solution that produces sophisticated results in no time.... This simplicity often turns into shackles when the programmers reach the edge of the framework's capabilities. Changing little details or producing slightly unorthodox output can be maddening.

    That's downright flamebait.

    I suspect that many Rails developers do feel this way, for the same reason that many PHP programs are useless spaghetti code -- as a complete side effect. Since Rails is so easy to get into, it's a rude awakening when you need to do something it doesn't provide -- you're finding out just how much work Rails has done for you.

    But seriously, "slightly unorthodox output"? Are you serious? Probably one of the easiest things to do is add another view of the same data -- even in another format.

    A programmer gets the rock-solid foundation of compiled Java code mixed with the flexibility to diddle with the Java objects in real time.

    Maybe Groovy makes that easier, but Java already had reflection. Next!

    thanks to the lightning performance of the new JavaScript semi-compilers, the language is bound to look even more attractive.... The semantic barriers won't be as important as the languages rush to steal good ideas from one and other.... In five years, there's a good chance you'll be able to imagine you're writing Python while the code is interpreted by something called JavaScript.

    Interesting ideas. None of which apply to Javascript, now or ever.

    You see, Javascript client-side is a nightmare, because you have to make it work in several existing browsers, which don't always play nice with the standards.

    And Javascript, the language, is evolving at an incredibly slow pace -- mostly because it's got the worst case of cruft of any language. Add an interesting feature in a browser, and you probably break some client code. Even if you're careful, as a developer, I can't use your feature if it isn't also present in other browsers.

    So changing the core syntax of the language is right out. If we were to break backwards compatibility in such a dramatic way, it'd make a lot more sense to port Python to the browser.

    In which case, we may as well use Java or Silverlight -- plenty of dynamic languages target these. My personal favorite would probably be JRuby in an applet.

    Libraries such as Dojo and jQuery aren't just a set of helpful routines; they actively tweak the language and ask you to adopt a particular set of idioms.

    True enough -- except that in the case of jQuery, it actually doesn't force anything. If you really like wasting time, you can write using the old idioms you learned. If you don't like jQuery, you can always rename the $ variable and pretend it doesn't exist.

    The focus really should be on the next point, which is actually a good one:

    Applications are becoming their own worlds.

    Especially in a dynamic language, any body of code of sufficient size is going to have some idioms of its own.

    The main reason frameworks are important

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  14. Re:the inevitability of an uber-scripting language by sulfur · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think I've seen it somewhere.

  15. Holy moly, that's a lot of buzzwords by MoxFulder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the co-optation of successful ideas across languages, to the infusion of application development into applications that are fast evolving beyond their traditional purpose, to the rise of frameworks, the cloud, and amateur code enablers, ...

    Honestly, for anyone who actually uses them to solve problems, the benefits of dynamic languages aren't hard to understand: they allow you to code easily and clearly, to debug quickly, and to expand from simple scripts to complex systems. And they're surrounded by supportive developer communities and code libraries.

    Just like all the other great geek innovations... we don't need marketing types to notice in order to enjoy our toys :-)

  16. Re:Malda by prockcore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pestilence, Famine and War.

  17. Re:coldfusion by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 3, Funny

    Low energy nuclear reactions are useless when scripting

    --
    She made the willows dance