Slashdot Mirror
Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)
Nerval's Lobster writes: Over at Dice, there's a breakdown of the programming languages that could prove most popular over the next year or two, including Apple's Swift, JavaScript, CSS3, and PHP. But perhaps the most interesting entry on the list is Erlang, an older language invented in 1986 by engineers at Ericsson. It was originally intended to be used specifically for telecommunications needs, but has since evolved into a general-purpose language, and found a home in cloud-based, high-performance computing when concurrency is needed. "There aren't a lot of Erlang jobs out there," writes developer Jeff Cogswell. "However, if you do master it (and I mean master it, not just learn a bit about it), then you'll probably land a really good job. That's the trade-off: You'll have to devote a lot of energy into it. But if you do, the payoffs could be high." And while the rest of the featured languages are no-brainers with regard to popularity, it's an open question how long it might take Swift to become popular, given how hard Apple will push it as the language for developing on iOS.
Over at Dice
But we are at Dice, sir:
Pros: Today's article has more content than the usual Dice front page linkage. Great article if you're not a programmer but feel stymied by the wide assortment of languages out there. Although instead of hemming and hawing before making your first project you're better off listening to Winston Churchill and sticking your feet in the mud: "The maxim 'Nothing avails but perfection' may be spelt shorter -- 'Paralysis."
...
Cons: It barely scratches the surface of an incredibly deep topic with unlimited facets. And when one is considering investing potential technical debt into a technology, this probably wouldn't even suffice as an introduction let alone table of contents. Words spent on anecdotes ("In 2004, a coworker of mine referred to it as a 'toy language.'" like, lol no way bro!) could have been better spent on things like Lambdas in Java 8. Most interesting on the list is Erlang? Seems to be more of a random addition that could just as easily been Scala, Ruby, Groovy, Clojure, Dart -- whatever the cool hip thing it is we're playing with today but doesn't seem to quite pan out on a massive scale
My work here is dung.
CSS3 is not a programming language. No more then HTML is.
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Learn C++, Java or C# and get yourself a job at a big corporate.
But hey, if you want to be a hipster coder and dick about all day doing "groovy" websites at some here today gone tommorow startup and earning fuck all by all means go down the web development route along with every other 14 year old school kid.
Erlang? Nice language but too niche. Never really got momentum outside telecoms and its probably too late for it now.
Please, no more Erlang world domination news.
I went through that 3 years ago already. We had a project that a fanatic asked us to rewrite in Erlang.
it took 9 months with 2.5 people.
Tons of issues, mostly with very lacking library support, tooling. Obnoxious stuck up community too.
In one case, I had a guy tell me online "hire me as an Erlang consultant and then I will help you".
In the end we set screw it (once the Erlang fanatic left).
We rewrote this 9 months of Erlang development in 3 weeks (!) using one senior Java developer.
it worked like a charm and still runs flawlessly in production today.
Erlang = HYPE
Everything is immutable is beautiful for fairy tales, but not for real-life software (trying building a DOM in a language which is 100% immutable).
All modern languages have learned from Erlang's mistake. They do immutable by default, but allow mutable if there is a need for it (e.g. Ceylon, Rust, etc)
Next year, the languages you'll need will still be C, C++ and Java. Maybe some C#, Python or Bash. The year after that, you'll still be using C, C++, and Java. Maybe some C#, Python or Bash.
By 2020, the main difference is that you'll be working with machine-learning DSLs and libraries to program/train memristor based devices. But you'll still be using C, C++, and Java. Maybe some C#, Python or Bash.
Or how about learn about the fundamentals of computer science. Actually learn what pointers are, pass by reference, multi-threading, type safety, and all of the things that implies. Then express those in whatever language you want. If you truly understand how computers and languages work, and what an enterprise system is composed of, you will likely have future proofed your career. If your language doesn't support many of those ( I am looking at you, JavaScript), then perhaps consider how much those jobs are likely to pay in the long run....
Need? No. You can still use Objective C if you want to code iOS/OS X. Want? Yes.
And while the rest of the featured languages are no-brainers with regard to popularity, it's an open question how long it might take Swift to become popular, given how hard Apple will push it as the language for developing on iOS.
Apple does not have to push very hard. After looking at it and Objective C, it doesn't take a genius to see why programmers would prefer it over Objective C.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The whole point of Swift is its ability to abstract Cocoa. Lots of Swift's specifics make no sense without Cocoa. Given that Swift in practice is going to be loaded with calls to Cocoa, it is going to be as portable as Visual Basic or Bash.
C. Plain old C.
Entire Operating Systems are written in it. Userland tools for those operating systems are usually written in it. Any self-respecting developer knows at least C. The rest is just like fashion tips: next year they're outdated.
Although, as much as I hate to admit it, the same could be said for Java...
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
So much fail about Garbage Collection.
GC is not about forgetting to free memory. It's about higher level abstraction removing the need for the programmer to do the bookkeeping that the machine can do. Why don't we still program in assembler? Because it's less productive. It's about productivity. As data structures become extremely complex, and get modified over time, keeping track of the ownership responsibility of who is supposed to dispose of what becomes difficult to impossible, and is the source of memory leak bugs. In complex enough programs, you end up re-inventing a poor GC when you could have used one that is the product of decades of research.
The article fails to understand that you can also run out of memory in a program using GC. Just keep allocating stuff without and keeping references to everything you allocate.
Reference Counting is not real GC. Cyclical data structures will never get freed using reference counting.
One of the major, but under-recognized benefits of GC, which the article fails to mention, is that GC allows much simpler ''contracts' in APIs. No longer is memory management part of the 'contract' of an API. It doesn't matter which library or function created an object, nobody needs to worry about who is responsible for disposing of that object. When nobody references the object any more, the GC can gobble it up.
On the subject of Virtual Machines, the article could mention some of the highly aggressive compilation techniques used in JIT compilers. So every method in Java is a virtual call. But a JIT compiler knows when there is only one subclass that implements a particular method and makes all calls to the method non-virtual. If another subclass is loaded (or dynamically created on the fly) the JIT can recompile all methods that call the method such that they are now virtual calls. Yet still, the JIT may be able to prove that certain calls are always and only to a specific subclass, and so they can be non-virtual.
The JIT compiler in JVM can aggressively inline small functions. But if a class gets reloaded on the fly such an the body of an inlined method changed, the JIT will know to recompile every other method that inlined the changed method. Based on the changes to the method, it may or may not now make sense to inline it -- so the decision on whether to inline the method can change based on actual need.
The HotSpot JVM dynamically profiles code and doesn't waste time and memory compiling methods that do not have any significant effect on the system's overall performance. The profiling can vary depending on factors that vary from system to system, and could not be predicted in advance when using a static compiler. The JIT compiler can compile your method using instructions that happen to exist on the current microprocessor at runtime -- something that could not be determined in advance with a static compiler.
All of this may seem very complex. But it's why big Java systems run so darn fast. Not very many languages can have tens or even hundreds of gigabytes (yes GB) of heap with GC pause times of 10 ms. Yes, it may need six times the amount of memory, but for the overall benefits of speed, the cost of memory is cheap.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.