For statically typed languages member access is easy, you just calculate the offset of the member at compilation time. However how does ruby or python do it? There are maybe more structures with same member names and you are not even sure what kind of object a variable holds. Do they use some kind of dictionary to look up the member at runtime?
If you were implementing a dynamically typed language from scratch, that's probably where you would start - with something like a hashtable based dictionary, and it's a perfectly ok solution.
Some dynamic language runtimes optimized for size rather than performance (such as Jerryscript, a highly size-optimized Javascript interpreter) use this sort of approach exclusively, and it works fine.
However, most modern JIT-based dynamic language runtimes such as the V8 Javascript engine (used in Chrome and Node.js) or the JSC Javascript engine used in Safari only use this sort of dictionary as a fallback if they can't do anything better.
Here's an answer to another question where I described how V8 maps work and how they make property access very efficient. It contains a link to a much more detailed description, and a video by Lars Bak who is one of the lead engineers for V8, which is good if you're interested in how this stuff works.
With Ruby (as with Javascript), there are a number of different implementations (JRuby, MRI, Rubinius, etc), so to answer the question "How does Ruby do it" is difficult - each implementation will do it in a different way (although there will be many similarities, imposed by the language design).
Since you seemed to be asking about the concepts in dynamic languages in general, hopefully you'll find the link above gives you some useful information about possible implementations.
At the moment, I have to work with XACML. As there doesn't seem to be an editor to fit my needs, and as writing documents in it is a real pain, I wonder if I could not create some sort of DSL to make creating documents easier (are less error-prone). Is this possible with XText? I have a feeling it's possible but quite hard to do (especially for someone who doesn't know XText ;-)).
Getting rid of manually edited XML files is a typical use case for Xtext. The tedious part is the syntax definition itself. As soon as you have an idea how your files should look like, it's usually straight forward to get a working prototype with Xtext. What sort of concerns do you have?
Using the right language for the job is the key - this is the comment I read in SO and I also belive thats the right thing to do. Because of this we ended up using different languages for different parts of the project - like perl, VBA(Excel Macros), C# etc. We have three to four languages currently in use inside the project. Using the right language for the job has made it immensly more easy to do automate a job, but of late people are complaining that any new person who has to take over the project will have to learn so many different languages to get started. Also it is difficult to find such kind of person. Please note that this is a one to two person working on the project maximum at a given point of time. I would like to know if the method we are following is right or should we converge to single language and try to use it across all the job even though another language might be better suited for it. Your experenece related to this would also help.
Languages used and their purpose:
Perl - Processing large text file(log files)
C# with Silverlight for web based reporting.
LabVIEW for automation
Excel macros for processing data in excel sheets, generating graphs and exporting to powerpoint.
I'd say you are doing it right. Almost all the projects I've ever worked on have used multiple languages, without any problems. I think you may be overestimating the difficulty people have picking up new languages, particularly if they all use the same paradigm. If your project were using Haskell, Smalltalk, C++ and assembler, you might have difficulties, I must admit :-)
Using a variety languages vs maintainability is simply another design decision with cost-vs-benefits trade-offs that, like any design decision, need to considered carefully. While I like using the "absolute best" tool for the task (whatever "absolute best" means), I wouldn't necessarily use it without considering other factors such as:
do we have sufficient skill and experience to implement successfully
will we be able to find the necessary resources to maintain it
do we already use the language/tech in our system
does the increase in complexity to the overall system (e.g. integration issues, the impact on build automation) outweigh the benefits of using the "absolute best" language
is there another language that we already use and have experience in that is usable in lieu of the "absolute best" language
I worked a system with around a dozen engineers that used C++, Java, SQL, TCL, C, shell scripts, and just a touch of Perl. I was proud that we used the "best language" where they made sense, but, in one case, using the "best language" (TCL) was a mistake - not because it was TCL - but rather because we failed to observe the full costs-vs-benefits of the choice:*
we had only 1 engineer deeply familiar with TCL - the original engineer who refused to use anything but TCL for a particular target component - and then that engineer left the project
this target component was the only part of the system to use TCL and it was small relative to the other components in the system
the component could have been also implemented in another language we already used that we had plenty of experience in (C or C++) with some extra effort
the component appeared deceptively simple, but in reality had subtle corner cases that bit us in production (not something we could have known then, but always something to consider as a possibility later)
we had to implement special changes to the nightly build because the TCL compiler (yes, we compiled the TCL code into an executable) wouldn't work unless it could first throw its logo up on the screen - a screen which wasn't available during a cron-initiated automated nightly build. (We resorted to using xvfb to satisfy it.)
when bugs turned up, we had difficult time finding engineers who wanted to work on it
when problems with this component cropped up only after sustained load in the field, we lacked the experience and deep understanding of the TCL execution engine to easily debug it in the field
finally, the maintenance and sustainment team, which is a much smaller team with fewer resources than the main development team, had one more language that they needed training and experience in just to support this relatively small component
Although there were a number of things we could have done to head-off some of the issues we hit down the road (e.g. put more emphasis on getting TCL experience earlier, running better tests to detect the issues earlier, etc), my point is that the overall cost-vs-benefit didn't justify using TCL to code that single component. Again, it was not a mistake to use TCL because it was TCL (TCL is a fine language), but rather it was a mistake because we failed to give full consideration to the cost-vs-benefits.
As a Software Engineer it's your job to learn new languages if you need to. I would say you should go with the right tool for the job.
It's like sweeping the floor with an octopus. Yeah, it gets the job done... kind of... but it's probably not the best tool for the job. You're better off using a mop.
Another option is to create positions geared towards working in specific languages. So you can have a C# developer, a Perl developer, and a VBA developer who will only work with that language. It's a bit more overhead, but it is a workable solution.
Any modern software project of any scope -- even if it's a one-person job -- requires more than one language. For instance, a web project usually requires Javascript, a backend language, and a DB query language (though any of these might be created by the backend language). That said, there's a threshold that is easily reached, and then it would be very hard to find new developers to take over projects. What's the limit? Three languages? Four? Let's say: five is too many, but one would be too few for any reasonably complex project.
Using the right language for the right job is definitely appropriate - I am mainly a web programmer, and I need to know server-side programming (Rails, PHP + others), SQL, Javascript, jQuery, HTML & CSS (not programming languages strictly, but complex things I need to know) - it would be impossible for me to do all of that in a single language or technology.
If you have a team of smart developers, picking up new languages will not be a problem for them. In fact they probably will be eager to do so. Just make sure they are given adequate time (and mentoring) to learn the new language.
Sure, there will be a learning curve to implementing production code if there is a new language to learn, but you will have a stronger team member for it.
If you have developers in your teams who strongly resist learning new languages, unless there is a very good reason (e.g they are justifiably adamant that they are being asked to used a different language when it is not appropriate to do so) - then they are not the sort of developers I'd want in my teams.
And don't bother trying to hire people who know all the languages you use. Hire smart programmers (who probably know at least one language you use) - they should pick up the other languages just fine.
I would be of the opinion, that if I a programmer on my team wanted to introduce a second (or third) language into a project, that there better be VERY VERY good reason to do so; as a project manager I would need to be convinced that the cost of doing so, more than offset the problems. And it would take a lot of convincing.
Splitting up project into multiple languages makes it very expensive to hire the right person(s) to take over that project when it needs maintenance. For small and medium shops it could be a huge obstacle.
Edit: I am not talking about using javascript and c# on the same project, I am talking about using C# for most of the code, F# for a few parts and then VB or C++ for others - there would need to be a compelling reason.
KISS: 'Keep it simple stupid' is a good axiom to follow in most cases.
EDIT: I am not completely opposed to adding languages, but the burden of proof is on the person to who wants to do it. KISS (to me) applies to not only getting the project/product done and shipped, but also must take into account the lifetime maint. and support requirements. Lots of languages come and go, and programmers are attracted to new languages like a moth to a light. Most projects I have worked on, I still oversee and/or support 5 or 10 years later - last thing I want to see is some long forgotten and/or orphaned language responsible for some key part of an application I need to support.
My experience using C++ and Lua was that I wrote more glue than actual operational code and for dubious benefit.
I'd start by saying the issue is whether you are using the right paradigm for the job?
Suppose you know how to do object oriented programming in C#. I don't think the leap to Java is all that great . Although you'd have to familiarize yourself with libraries and syntax, the idea is pretty similar.
If you have procedural parts to your project, such as parsing files and various data transformations, your Perl/Excel Macros seem pretty similar.
But to address your issues, I'd say above all, you'll need clarity in code. Since your staff are using several languages, they won't be familiar with all languages to an equal degree. So make sure of this:
1) Syntactic sugar is explained in comments. Sugars are pretty language specific and may not be obvious to a new reader. For instance, in VBA I seem to remember there are default properties, so that TextBox1 = "Hello" is what you'd write instead of TextBox1.Text = "Hello". This can be confusing. Also, things like LINQ statements can have un-obvious meanings. So make sure people have comments to read.
2) Where two components from different languages have to work together, make excruciatingly specific details about how that happens. For instance, I once had to write a C component to be called from Excel VBA. There's quote a few steps and potential errors in doing this, especially as far as compiler flags. Make sure both sides know how their side of the interaction occurs.
Finally, as far as hiring people goes, I think you have to find people who aren't married to a specific language. To put it vaguely, hire an intelligent person who sees business issues, not code. He'll learn the lingo soon enough.
With "Polyglot" programming techniques becoming more relevant, it is almost a necessity to use the "right" PL for the problem. However, learning new languages takes time which usually most project team can't afford. What is the best way to learn a new programming language? Is there a common set of problems that can be solved to reach a certain level of competence?
Well, it depends what you want to do. (web, db, whatever).
Generally I'd want to know:
What's the library like, how do I reference it
What ORMs are there
What build/deployment platforms exist for it
How does it handle updates
How do I do general things, like:
DB Access
File things
Display UI's
and so on.
Really, learning is only by doing -- you need a project that you can use the given language for.
Project Euler is the first thing to come to mind as an oft-used set of problems to try in a new language, even if it's not something I've ever tried.
If the language is another JVM or CLR hosted one, the issues about learning the environment can be set aside -- you can use all your familiar APIs in your Clojure/Scala/F#... code -- and concentrate on the syntax and idiom.
Otherwise, you're probably using the new language because it has a good fit for the particular problem you want to solve (e.g. native code and functional -> Haskell; distributed and concurrent -> Erlang) so the fit of the feature set is known in advance but you have the extra load of learning the standard APIs. And that's what prototyping is for.
The book Programming Challenges and the associated website provide a large list of algorithmic problems, with automatic online judging in several languages (Java, C, C++). Any algorithm textbook can give you lots of examples of basic data structures and procedures to try and implement, which is often a nice way to get some practice with basic language syntax and features. My personal favourite for this is The Algorithm Design Manual, which is language agnostic, but there are plenty of good language-specific books available as well (Mastering Algorithms in Perl or Data Structures and Algorithms in Java, for example).
If you're interested in a general set of mathematical problems to try and solve, Project Euler is a great resource.
For more day to day problems, I find the cookbook approach most helpful. For example, both Perl and Python have excellent O'Reilly cookbooks, as well as online resources, which provide short examples of many common and important problems. As mentioned in another answer, the key here is to find canonical examples of basic features you will need, particularly by leveraging what's available in standard libraries. I usually try and build up my own small library of examples as I go along, e.g. a socket example, a DB access example, a file reading example, a simple numerical solver, etc, which I then pillage for ideas when it's time to write production code.
I'm working on some code generation tools, and a lot of complexity comes from doing scope analysis.
I frequently find myself wanting to know things like
What are the free variables of a function or block?
Where is this symbol declared?
What does this declaration mask?
Does this usage of a symbol potentially occur before initialization?
Does this variable potentially escape?
and I think it's time to rethink my scoping kludge.
I can do all this analysis but am trying to figure out a way to structure APIs so that it's easy to use, and ideally, possible to do enough of this work lazily.
What tools like this are people familiar with, and what did they do right and wrong in their APIs?
I'm a bit surprised at at the question, as I've done tons of code generation and the question of scoping rarely comes up (except occasionally the desire to generate unique names).
To answer your example questions requires serious program analysis well beyond scoping. Escape analysis by itself is nontrivial. Use-before-initialization can be trivial or nontrivial depending on the target language.
In my experience, APIs for program analysis are difficult to design and frequently language-specific. If you're targeting a low-level language you might learn something useful from the Machine SUIF APIs.
In your place I would be tempted to steal someone else's framework for program analysis. George Necula and his students built CIL, which seems to be the current standard for analyzing C code. Laurie Hendren's group have built some nice tools for analyzing Java.
If I had to roll my own I'd worry less about APIs and more about a really good representation for abstract-syntax trees.
In the very limited domain of dataflow analysis (which includes the uninitialized-variable question), João Dias and I have adapted some nice work by Sorin Lerner, David Grove, and Craig Chambers. Only our preliminary results are published.
Finally if you want to generate code in multiple languages this is a complete can of worms. I have done it badly several times. If you create something you like, publish it!