For a good many "typical" business apps I work with, the performance bottleneck is usually the database and/or the network, not the application code, unless you are doing something odd or wrong. Thus, "speed" is not the main concern.
Perhaps I should have said "dynamic" languages, as compared to "static" languages.
As far as advantages or disadvantages, in my opinion "static" languages are better for lower-level infrastructure, such as building OS's, database engines, etc.; while dynamic languages are better suited for applications.
Can't the traditional RDBMS shops buy a new bigger data disk, copy the data files over, and change the paths in the config? True, you probably have to take the DB down during this, but it doesn't seem like a huge effort.
I'm still not seeing it unless something akin to hot-swap is needed.
Maybe those shops failed to partition the data disk separate from the software disk. That's bad planning, not a bad DB system.
The popularity is largely because Java has two niches: enterprise applications, and Android apps.
This does not necessarily mean people like it. On the enterprise side, the only other viable choices are Microsoft languages, and COBOL; and for the Android native app side, there are no viable alternatives (with good-enough market share).
C++ is better suited to hardware-centric applications and system drivers rather than CRUD, and business/enterprise.
It's more of a lack of choice than it is love of Java. For smallish web-oriented apps and internal scripting there are choices like Php, Python, Perl, and Ruby. But if you want a compiled language, the viable choices are very limited.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of compiled languages with the potential to gain sufficient market share, but until they do, they are a risky platform investment for most orgs.
I don't get it, there's probably like only 30 companies in the US big enough to need "web scale". Why does everyone talk about it as if the chance of being or becoming one of those big-wigs is quite small?
It's like building a parking garage for all your future beemers when you are still a mom-and-pop shop. Is it an ego thing?
There's usually trade-offs on data tools such that having potential scalability will create here-and-now difficulties when small. I'm skeptical of anybody claiming a free trade-off lunch.
Of course, that enforcement and regulation will need an organization to be done. I guess that organization will be amazingly free of all these problems.
It's unionized turtles all the way down;-)
If you have a better way to organize civilization, we'd be happy to see it. Every human endeavor has a percent of waste and BS. Gov't institutions typically waste via sluggishness and bureaucracy, and market institutions waste on marketing and customer manipulation.
adopt their shitty, broken, prefixed CSS, because web developers were too lazy to do things right... Shows just how professional my peers are that they refuse to develop to proper standards
Many IT workers who make web pages or templates are not JUST web page builders/designers. Often they wear multiple hats and are the help-desk, hardware repair, DB admin, network admin, desktop developer, etc. etc. etc.
When you wear multiple hats, it's difficult to find time to master them all, and probably an unrealistic expectation.
You can claim the organization "should" hire specialists, and thus more people, but they would need a clear reason. The organization doesn't care or know anything about "web standards", they just want sufficient staff to "get it done" without paying too much.
Oh, wait, you're paying yourself [union manager] 4x the average salary of your members for a three days a week job?
Union management is usually (in theory) decided by worker votes. Since it's their dues paying union manager salaries, the workers typically don't want to pay them more than necessary. If this mini-democracy is not working right, then there's some digging and fixing to do. Some other force is mucking things up.
Unions are quite prone to using dues-money for self-enrichment, power-playing, politicking... and even today, some unions are not above using violence and intimidation...
They are not "prone" to anything. Bad apples and jerks form in any large group of people or organization instances. It's human nature that a certain percent are jerks, or the majority of the group will act jerky at times.
Enforcement and regulation may be needed to tame organizations if they take advantage of lack of enforcement or regulation.
Unions are merely collections of people who work together for certain goals. They are not inherently better or worse than corporations, other than perhaps the enforcement and regulations they are governed under and/or external pressures from their environment of operation.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The fight over whether corporations or unions are the bigger sleazebags is a fake argument. They are made up of the same stuff: humans who follow human nature and who need some degree of governance and oversight.
To me death is an obvious part of the life cycle, which is the base for evolution
I wouldn't say death is a prerequisite. "Competition for quantity" may be effective in driving evolution also. Those variations that are the most common will be the more efficient or prolific replicators, and that's why they are more common.
Mutations that produce faster replicators will be more common, creating a feedback mechanism to "reward" them, where the reward is quantity of existence rather than mere survival.
If you have a big enough breeding ground, the difference between slow replicators and fast replicators can make a huge difference and be a big driver of variation.
Who knows, maybe Earth's very first species, a really really slow replicator, is still around. But since there's only say 500 of them, no scientist will ever find any.
Note that slow-replicating bacteria have been found inside deep buried rocks. Some speculate they reproduce roughly once every 10,000 years (which is more prolific than most slashdotters:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Poor Scotty, never could find enough power.
What would be the equivalent long-hand in "traditional" SQL?
Sounds too much like "Up Skirt". Somebody's gonna sue.
It's the Great Pop-Up Ad.
That's generally what I meant by "hardware-centric applications" in an earlier message. Perhaps I should have worded it differently.
For a good many "typical" business apps I work with, the performance bottleneck is usually the database and/or the network, not the application code, unless you are doing something odd or wrong. Thus, "speed" is not the main concern.
Perhaps I should have said "dynamic" languages, as compared to "static" languages.
As far as advantages or disadvantages, in my opinion "static" languages are better for lower-level infrastructure, such as building OS's, database engines, etc.; while dynamic languages are better suited for applications.
I disagree. Domain is typically like "accounting", "civil engineering", "marketing", etc.
Wafflenauts
Can't the traditional RDBMS shops buy a new bigger data disk, copy the data files over, and change the paths in the config? True, you probably have to take the DB down during this, but it doesn't seem like a huge effort.
I'm still not seeing it unless something akin to hot-swap is needed.
Maybe those shops failed to partition the data disk separate from the software disk. That's bad planning, not a bad DB system.
Agreed. NK leaders will only go down with a nasty fight and take a lot of people with them in the process, mostly South Koreans.
Any politician who claims there is an easy fix deserves being slapped with a wet pig.
If they claim they can solve it using "strong leadership", they deserve TWO wet pigs. I'm tired of that phrase.
"Usage profile groupings"? I'm at a loss for a better word. "Niche" does seem a bit too specific. Suggestions welcomed.
The "enterprise" app development market and mobile app development market are 2 very different usage/platform profile grouping thingies.
May I ask for a realistic scenario?
The popularity is largely because Java has two niches: enterprise applications, and Android apps.
This does not necessarily mean people like it. On the enterprise side, the only other viable choices are Microsoft languages, and COBOL; and for the Android native app side, there are no viable alternatives (with good-enough market share).
C++ is better suited to hardware-centric applications and system drivers rather than CRUD, and business/enterprise.
It's more of a lack of choice than it is love of Java. For smallish web-oriented apps and internal scripting there are choices like Php, Python, Perl, and Ruby. But if you want a compiled language, the viable choices are very limited.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of compiled languages with the potential to gain sufficient market share, but until they do, they are a risky platform investment for most orgs.
As Winston Churchill once said, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" [paraphrased]
Correction
Re: Why does everyone talk about it as if the chance of being or becoming one of those big-wigs is quite small?
Rework: Why does everyone talk about it when the chance of being or becoming one of those big-wigs is quite small?
I don't get it, there's probably like only 30 companies in the US big enough to need "web scale". Why does everyone talk about it as if the chance of being or becoming one of those big-wigs is quite small?
It's like building a parking garage for all your future beemers when you are still a mom-and-pop shop. Is it an ego thing?
There's usually trade-offs on data tools such that having potential scalability will create here-and-now difficulties when small. I'm skeptical of anybody claiming a free trade-off lunch.
It's probably easier to find Oracle experts and documentation because it's more common.
It's kind of a Catch-22 for PosgreSql: you can't get market-share until you get market-share.
It's unionized turtles all the way down ;-)
If you have a better way to organize civilization, we'd be happy to see it. Every human endeavor has a percent of waste and BS. Gov't institutions typically waste via sluggishness and bureaucracy, and market institutions waste on marketing and customer manipulation.
Many IT workers who make web pages or templates are not JUST web page builders/designers. Often they wear multiple hats and are the help-desk, hardware repair, DB admin, network admin, desktop developer, etc. etc. etc.
When you wear multiple hats, it's difficult to find time to master them all, and probably an unrealistic expectation.
You can claim the organization "should" hire specialists, and thus more people, but they would need a clear reason. The organization doesn't care or know anything about "web standards", they just want sufficient staff to "get it done" without paying too much.
Union management is usually (in theory) decided by worker votes. Since it's their dues paying union manager salaries, the workers typically don't want to pay them more than necessary. If this mini-democracy is not working right, then there's some digging and fixing to do. Some other force is mucking things up.
They are not "prone" to anything. Bad apples and jerks form in any large group of people or organization instances. It's human nature that a certain percent are jerks, or the majority of the group will act jerky at times.
Enforcement and regulation may be needed to tame organizations if they take advantage of lack of enforcement or regulation.
Unions are merely collections of people who work together for certain goals. They are not inherently better or worse than corporations, other than perhaps the enforcement and regulations they are governed under and/or external pressures from their environment of operation.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The fight over whether corporations or unions are the bigger sleazebags is a fake argument. They are made up of the same stuff: humans who follow human nature and who need some degree of governance and oversight.
Define "life", sir.
I wouldn't say death is a prerequisite. "Competition for quantity" may be effective in driving evolution also. Those variations that are the most common will be the more efficient or prolific replicators, and that's why they are more common.
Mutations that produce faster replicators will be more common, creating a feedback mechanism to "reward" them, where the reward is quantity of existence rather than mere survival.
If you have a big enough breeding ground, the difference between slow replicators and fast replicators can make a huge difference and be a big driver of variation.
Who knows, maybe Earth's very first species, a really really slow replicator, is still around. But since there's only say 500 of them, no scientist will ever find any.
Note that slow-replicating bacteria have been found inside deep buried rocks. Some speculate they reproduce roughly once every 10,000 years (which is more prolific than most slashdotters :-)
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
How dare you commit sacrilege against the Great Monsanto!