Decline and fall of scripting languages ?

P

Paddy

Do you know anyone who has dropped LAMP for a proprietary Web solution?
Or vice versa?
Know any sys-admins that have dropped their use of scripting languages
for something else?
What are the alternatives that are supposedly driving scripting
languages out?

- I'm unconvinced.
 
C

Cliff Wells


It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).

PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.

Commercially funded studies are completely untrustworthy. I've seen
contradictory studies published within months of each other by the same
research firms - it was more indicative of a change in clientelle than
anything else.

Cliff
 
P

Paul Rubin

Cliff Wells said:
It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).

PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.

That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.

Lately I'm interested in OCAML as a possible step up from Python. It
has bogosity of its own (much of it syntactic) but it has static
typing and a serious compiler, from what I understand. I don't think
I can grok it from just reading the online tutorial; I'm going to have
to code something in it, once I get a block of time available. Any
thoughts?
 
J

Joseph Garvin

Paul said:
That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.
www.google.com
 
R

Robert Kern

Paul said:
Thanks but I wanted a more Pythonic point of view.

google('"ruby on rails" python')

Plenty of Pythonistas posting paragraphs pontificating on the Pythonic
perspective.

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
 
K

Kay Schluehr

Paul said:
That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.

Exacly. While Pythons main attitude is reducing clutter and redundant
design while staying within an OO mindframe, Ruby reintroduces perlish
clutter. Ruby was mentioned to be a more clean OO language than Python
in times where Python didn't support inheritance from builtins.
Nowadays anonymus blocks are the single most discriminative feature
Ruby is praised for. Therefore Ruby seems to be more modern than Python
to some people allthough it's design concept is reactionary - or
"postmodern" what may be the same in post-postmodern times ;-)
Lately I'm interested in OCAML as a possible step up from Python. It
has bogosity of its own (much of it syntactic) but it has static
typing and a serious compiler, from what I understand. I don't think
I can grok it from just reading the online tutorial; I'm going to have
to code something in it, once I get a block of time available. Any
thoughts?

The whole ML family ( including OCaml ) and languages like Haskell
based on a Hindley-Milnor type system clearly make a difference. I
would say that those languages are also cutting edge in language theory
research. It should be definitely interesting to you. Since there is no
single language implementation you might also find one that supports
concepts you need most e.g. concurrency:

http://cml.cs.uchicago.edu/

Regards,
Kay
 
P

Paul Rubin

Kay Schluehr said:
The whole ML family ( including OCaml ) and languages like Haskell
based on a Hindley-Milnor type system clearly make a difference. I
would say that those languages are also cutting edge in language theory
research. It should be definitely interesting to you. Since there is no
single language implementation you might also find one that supports
concepts you need most e.g. concurrency:

http://cml.cs.uchicago.edu/

Thanks. That link doesn't work right now but I'll try again later.

I wonder why the ML's didn't just dispense with the syntax nonsense
and present themselves unabashedly as statically typed Lisp dialects
complete with parentheses.

For concurrency, Oz looks neat, but probably doomed to Python-like
slow performance (at least the shootout benchmarks have been pretty
poor). I find it easier to understand than ML though I haven't coded
anything in it either. I wonder if using logic variables for
inter-thread communication without careful conventions can lead to
total spaghetti.

I also want to check out Erlang and Occam, in my copious free time.
 
P

Paul Rubin

gene tani said:

Thanks, the way Ruby passes closure arguments to various of its
library builtins is cute. PEP 343 adds something sort of comparable
to Python but I think more library support and culture evolution will
be needed before the "with" statement operates as smoothly.

Ruby just doesn't interest me that much though (maybe I'm missing
something). I was hoping for a concise explanation of what Rails does
and whether it's feasible to do something like it in (say) Python. I
did look at the rubyonrails.com site but there were too many marketing
buzzwords and downloadable videos for me to deal with.
 
P

phil

Kay Schluehr ([email protected]) wrote:
: No good news for scripting-language fans:

: http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/psecom,id,23284,nodeid,113.html

What incredible horse dooey.

The only thing that NEVER "penetrates the enterprise space"
is good sense.

Does anyone read history books? There is no such thing as a large
corporation that is not doomed. There are a few names which are
older than 1/2 a century but the companies and players are
unrecognizable. We have barbeque joints in Texas older than IBM.
And noone from 1970 would recognize IBM.
The "enterprise" is good for one thing. Devouring each other.

The "enterprise"'s opinion about what is good for the future
is like this broker I knew in Dallas. All you had to do was
find out which stock he was recommending, then short it.
 
D

Donn Cave

Quoth "Kay Schluehr" <[email protected]>:
| Paul Rubin wrote:
[ ... re where to go from Python ]
|> Lately I'm interested in OCAML as a possible step up from Python. It
|> has bogosity of its own (much of it syntactic) but it has static
|> typing and a serious compiler, from what I understand. I don't think
|> I can grok it from just reading the online tutorial; I'm going to have
|> to code something in it, once I get a block of time available. Any
|> thoughts?
|
| The whole ML family ( including OCaml ) and languages like Haskell
| based on a Hindley-Milnor type system clearly make a difference. I
| would say that those languages are also cutting edge in language theory
| research. It should be definitely interesting to you. Since there is no
| single language implementation you might also find one that supports
| concepts you need most e.g. concurrency:
|
| http://cml.cs.uchicago.edu/

My vote would be Haskell first, then other functional languages.
Learning FP with Objective CAML is like learning to swim in a
wading pool -- you won't drown, but there's a good chance you
won't really learn to swim either. Has an interesting, very
rigorous OOP model though.

Donn Cave, (e-mail address removed)
 
P

Paul Rubin

Donn Cave said:
My vote would be Haskell first, then other functional languages.
Learning FP with Objective CAML is like learning to swim in a
wading pool -- you won't drown, but there's a good chance you
won't really learn to swim either. Has an interesting, very
rigorous OOP model though.

I'm not sure what you mean by that about OCAML. That its functional
model is not pure enough? I'd like to look at Haskell as well, but I
have the impression that its implementation is not as serious as
OCaml's, i.e. no native-code compiler.
 
N

Neil Benn

phil said:
What incredible horse dooey.

The only thing that NEVER "penetrates the enterprise space"
is good sense.

Does anyone read history books? There is no such thing as a large
corporation that is not doomed. There are a few names which are
older than 1/2 a century but the companies and players are
unrecognizable. We have barbeque joints in Texas older than IBM.
And noone from 1970 would recognize IBM.
The "enterprise" is good for one thing. Devouring each other.

The "enterprise"'s opinion about what is good for the future
is like this broker I knew in Dallas. All you had to do was
find out which stock he was recommending, then short it.
<snip>
Err, that's not what is meant by enterprise, it's a catch all term for
large distributed systems, take a look at the link below for an idea of
this:

http://java.sun.com/j2ee/faq.html

Obviously there are other variations on this than the Sun stuff but
enterprise dosn't mean 'very large companies' in this case.

Cheers,

Neil

--

Neil Benn
Senior Automation Engineer
Cenix BioScience
BioInnovations Zentrum
Tatzberg 47
D-01307
Dresden
Germany

Tel : +49 (0)351 4173 154
e-mail : (e-mail address removed)
Cenix Website : http://www.cenix-bioscience.com
 
D

Dave Brueck

Paul said:
Ruby just doesn't interest me that much though (maybe I'm missing
something).

I don't think you are. My impression is that if you've never used Python or
Ruby, you'll generally end up liking whichever of the two you really discover
first (since the common case is that you're coming from Java/C++/PHP/etc - the
more mainstream languages).

IIRC, the creator of Ruby got really hung up on the fact that Python was not a
pure OO language, so he decided to make a new language that was (this was in the
pre-metaclass, old-style class days of Python).
I was hoping for a concise explanation of what Rails does

I'd say it's similar to Zope in that

(1) For both, the introductory tutorials make it seem deceptively easy to use,
but they hide a sometimes steep learning curve

(2) For both, it's hard to find clear, concise documentation midway between
introductory tutorials and reading the source code

(3) For both, being frameworks, you have to commit yourself to them almost
entirely and be prepared for some serious lock-in

(4) Oh yeah, they're both web application frameworks :) (ROR has libraries to
aid in building database-centric web applications: it includes an database ORM,
a web templating language, libraries for user sessions, etc.)
and whether it's feasible to do something like it in (say) Python. I
did look at the rubyonrails.com site but there were too many marketing
buzzwords and downloadable videos for me to deal with.

Yes, it's incredibly feasible. I think the Subway project is sort of heading
down a similar path but using Python instead. I've tried a couple of times to
use Ruby on Rails and, I have to admit, I had a tough time cutting through the
hype (also, it seemed like the preferred method of learning about features was
through downloading large videos).

The ActiveRecord library (for handling mapping objects to the database) seems
sort of powerful, but the tutorials and demo videos make a huge deal about how
ROR can generate a web form by inspecting the database table metadata. (Useful?
Probably. Mind-blowingly cool? Hardly.)

Beyond ActiveRecord, there is some additional stuff to help you build
Model-View-Controller web UIs, and then lots of the standard web app components
(user sessions, security, logging, etc.).

I think ROR's big selling point isn't technology-related at all: it's hype
machine has helped build an active community, and it's a single framework as
opposed to Python's bazillions. :)

-Dave
 
D

Donn Cave

Paul Rubin said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that about OCAML. That its functional
model is not pure enough? I'd like to look at Haskell as well, but I
have the impression that its implementation is not as serious as
OCaml's, i.e. no native-code compiler.

On the contrary, there are a couple. Ghc is probably the
leading implementation these days, and by any reasonable
measure, it is serious.

Objective CAML is indeed not a pure functional language.

Donn Cave, (e-mail address removed)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,767
Messages
2,569,571
Members
45,045
Latest member
DRCM

Latest Threads

Top