To switch or not to switch, part 3

This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series To switch or not to switch

Continued from Part 2, we’re down to 41 languages that you could potentially build a modern, database-driven application with. I’d like to knock another 10-12 more off the list before I get into trying the language themselves, but I’m running out of black-and-white rules to do it with.

Concurrency is a big part of scaling, but that’s a tough characteristic to pin down. Any JVM-based language is going to have access to a great threading model, but people have been able to scale languages that lack threads at all, like Python (Edit: Python has threads) languages that have poor or difficult threading, to decent volumes as well, so clearly threads are not a requirement.

I spend much of my time writing web software, so robust support of that, like Java’s Servlet specification and third party additions like Spring MVC, is nice to have as well. Ruby and Python have made many of their gains based on the strengths of their web frameworks. However, an otherwise good language could add a web framework relatively easily, so again it’s not a requirement.

The way a language handles text is important when working with users, databases, web services, etc., but this can be addressed with libraries. Object orientation can be nice too, as can other models. Interpreted vs. compiled, machine code vs. byte code, exceptions, static typing, dynamic typing, the list goes on with important details that aren’t actually important enough that I can’t really live without them. I certainly prefer static typing, checked exceptions, painless threading, garbage collection, run-anywhere bytecode, running in a virtual machine, but I know smart people who can make valid arguments against every one of those, and maybe I just haven’t given the alternatives enough of a chance.

What is really important to me about a language is its community, leadership, and, for lack of a better term, motive. For this reason I’m going to knock the Microsoft-led CLI languages off the list. I know that CLI is a standard, and that the open source implementation is not beholden to it, but I’m simply not going to program in the Microsoft ecosystem. I think they just don’t care about open source and independent development. This eliminates:

  • C#
  • Boo
  • Cobra
  • F#

It’s kind of a shame because F# looks interesting and is something I’d like to tinker with some day. I also think C# is actually a pretty good language, and, while it initially seemed like Java Jr., it evolved to have some powerful features, moreso than Java in some ways. Unfortunately, even with Mono in the picture, it’s still a Microsoft product to me.

It should definitely be noted that I’m not exactly happy about Oracle owning Java now either. Due to Java’s inertia, I haven’t seen any Oracle decisions affect me yet, and I’ve probably got a number of years before I have to deal with that if and when they decide to do something bad. They could kill it entirely and people would still be using it for a long time.

Along similar lines, Objective-C’s fate seems to be tied closely with the whims of Apple. I don’t see any interest in using it for non-Apple OS projects, so it is bumped off the list as well.

  • Objective-C

Also some of these languages have such a small community or slow pace of development that they don’t seem worthy of investing in:

  • ALGOL 68
  • Clean
  • Dylan
  • GameMonkey Script
  • Mirah
  • Unicon

Three of these languages are active, but the community (and therefore the language) are solving very different problems, Processing with its graphics and visualizations, Scratch with its introductory/training aspects, and Vala is tied closely to GNOME applications.

  • Processing
  • Scratch
  • Vala

This leaves 27 languages moving on to part 4, most of which I’m definitely looking forward to learning more about:

  • Ada
  • Clojure
  • Common Lisp
  • D
  • Eiffel
  • Erlang
  • Falcon
  • Fantom
  • Factor
  • Go
  • Groovy
  • Haskell
  • Io
  • Java
  • JavaScript
  • Lua
  • MUMPS
  • Pike
  • Pure
  • Objective Caml
  • Python
  • Ruby
  • Scala
  • Scheme
  • Squeak
  • Tea
  • Tcl
Series NavigationTo switch or not to switch, part 2
  • Phil

    Python does have threads!

    Utf-8 support should be a hard requirement also.

  • I stand corrected! I was under the misconception that Python threads were a hack based around GIL, but obviously had never actually used them.

    Utf-8 support is a good one. I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to say a hard requirement, but lacking it would certainly be a major demerit. If I set the bar on that as high as where Java is I think the list would shrink to only JVM languages?

  • phil

    Python’s threads are not your friend if you are doing CPU-bound work (due to the GIL).

    For me, UTF-8 is a hard requirement. Consider the major trends in the world (i.e. the rise of Asia, globalization in general). One cannot make a credible case that a language without at least very good UTF-8 support is a reasonable choice today, let alone in the future.

  • Pingback: To switch or not to switch, part 4 « Eric F. Savage()

  • Peter

    I think you might want to add Jython — Python written in Java to run on the JVM. In some ways this may be the best of both worlds; write Python (much more enjoyable than Java) to build Java classes. (I use standard Python, so I’m telling you what I’ve read not what I’ve done.) If you’re interested you can extend this idea with ABCL, a lisp that compiles to JVM code. The upshot is that you can use each language to do what it does best and then run your project on any platform with a JVM.