I am writing a list function in couchDB. I want to know if using a faster language than javascript would boost performance (i was thinking python, just because I know it).
Does anyone know if this is true, and has anyone tested whether it is true?
Generally the different view engines are going to give you the same speed.
Except erlang, which is much faster.
The reason for this is that erlang is what CouchDB is written in and for all other languages the data needs to get converted into standard JSON then sent to the view server, then converted back to the native erlang format for writing.
BUT, This performance "boost" only happens on view generation, which typically happens out -of-line of a request or only on the changed documents.
As in, real world usage performance difference between view servers is irrelevant most of the time.
Here is the list of all the view server implementations: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/View_server
I've never used the python ones, but if that is where you are comfortable, go for it.
You can use the V8 engine if you want for Couch. A guy from IrisCouch wrote couchjs to do this (I've seen him on Stack Overflow quite a bit too).
https://github.com/iriscouch/couchjs
Also for views, filtered replication, things like that, you can write the functions in Erlang instead of javascript. I've done that and seen around a 50% performance increase.
Seems you can write list functions in Erlang: http://tisba.de/2010/11/25/native-list-functions-with-couchdb/
Given that applications for mobile devices are expected to be small and simple,
often with heavy computation off-loaded to a web-service.
Is OO, over and above frameworks such as J2ME, relevant to mobile application programming ?
Would application specific frameworks, say for client specific customization, not be an avoidable overhead, particularly when an existing framework (J2ME) itself is already available?
Are there any J2ME frameworks available e.g. Struts etc?
Object Oriented programing, in and of itself, does not imply any specific overhead. It's merely a methodology. You can create programs which use an OO design methodology which are still fast and simple, just as you can create non-OO programs which are slow and kludgy.
Sure, use OO (it is Java after all), but you have to be a little bit more careful, as space and memory are limited for J2ME. A judicious uses of classes is good, but don't go overboard with those things that have classes that create factories that generate other things, etc... etc... That's actually something I like about J2ME: you can't go overboard with the "architecture astronaut" stuff.
Well J2ME is Java and therefore is OO. You can write code in a procedural way in OO land, but that isn't really the point now is it? If you don't want to do OO switch to Python.
As Mr. Knuth said it, "premature optimization is the root of all evil".
Similarly, just because you encounter a new platform, J2ME in this case, it makes no sense to forget everything about how to write good software and go back to the global-everything-procedural-everything-orgy.
Sure, use your brain, and don't do things that you wouldn't do on the desktop (e.g. java memleaks by spawning craploads of objects and forgetting to get rid of refs to them, or, just as bad, simply spawning loads of objects indiscriminately). Factories creating factories creating factories might however not be as stupid as it sounds, especially if the reason you're doing that is because it helps you write lots of unit tests. (And yes, do write unit tests on J2ME!)
And responding to David N. Welton a few answers up, "architecture astronaut", or over-engineering, doesn't have to ever happen if you go with the good old iterative approach -- don't make things more complex until it measurably simplifies your life.
So to sum up, my feeling is that everybody is just using the "memory and space constraints" on J2ME and Blackberry to toss the good sense out the window and write crappy, un-navigable software. I assure you that if you go the iterative way and test your app every so often you will notice when the performance becomes unsatisfactory and take appropriate measures at that point. And the chances are, the performance issue will be due to you doing something stupid and not due to the abstractions.
Disclaimer: if you ARE reading this from 1999, writing for CLDC 1.0 with 1KB of mem, or for a JavaCard, disregard all of the above. If however you're running on any feature-phone of today, you're in luck!
I'm writing a app which integrates with windows shell and adds an additional context menu.
And am considering a couple of languages to write it in:
MS .NET - I'd rather not use managed code for this type of app
win32asm - This is my first choice
VC++/C++ - Not sure
So basically its a toss up between assembly and C++ anyone have any thoughts or considerations that might make my choice easier?
You want shell context applications to have small footprints. This rules out managed code at least for now. This may speak somewhat in favour of win32asm, although the C++ libraries aren't really all that large compared to the .NET runtime (less than a MB, all told, isn't that big these days)!
You want shell context applications to be stable, since otherwise people will kick them out to save their explorer.exe processes. This speaks heavily against win32asm. If you know only you will ever maintain the app, and you have great assembler skills, win32asm may work, though I myself wouldn't go that way. You still have to implement COM interfaces, which is a big enough headache without adding the complexities of assembly coding.
I'd go for VC++ with ATL support, without further thought, but with serious unit testing and safeguards against resource leakage. But if you aren't comfortable with C++ and templates, this may present a rocky road for you. On the plus side, you'll have a much smaller set of source code to maintain, and have a much easier time finding others to help or take over. You may also have improved a still relevant valuable skill set.
We're writing a large production system in Java, and I'm considering whether or not we can write some of the components in one of the JVM-based dynamic languages. Groovy appears to be the best choice from the Java interoperability standpoint. But is the Groovy implementation reliable enough to use in production (I would assume so), and is the Groovy language specification itself stable enough so that we aren't going to have to revise our production code substantially in a year or two? What are your experiences?
Summary (5/30/09): Good comments, the sense I get is that you should be cautious in adopting Groovy for mission-critical production use, it's fine for ancillary usages like putting together test cases, and there's a middle ground where it's probably fine but do your homework first. Performance is an issue, which needs to be balanced against the increase in developer productivity. Bill and Ichorus have equally helpful answers based on Groovy use, so it was a coin toss.
Update (12/3/09): More recently I've been taking a serious look at Scala, another JVM language. It was designed and implemented by Martin Odersky, the original author of the current javac compiler and the co-designer of Java Generics. Scala is a strongly typed, but uses type inferencing to strip out a lot of boilerplate. It's a nice blend of object-oriented and functional programming. James Gosling likes it. James Strachan, the author of Groovy, likes it too. And Odersky's experience writing javac means Scala's raw performance is not far from Java's, which is impressive.
Update (4/26/11): Take a look at Groovy++, a statically typed extension of Groovy, which has performance equivalent to Java. Looks very interesting.
Edit: Here almost four years later and Groovy has become much more solid.
I can wholeheartedly recommend it for production grade projects.
I've been using Groovy to support production applications for a while and for that purpose it is stable enough. As for actually having Groovy in bona fide production code; I don't think I would do that. Groovy does too many surprising things. It has gotten much better in this regard over the past year or so, but every once in awhile I will run into a bug that is a bit difficult to track down because of the generated code (my issues seem to have revolved around scoping).
I have gotten away from Groovy (though the stuff that we use that is simple and solid is still around) and have used Python (jython implementation), which has been far more predictable in my opinion. Also, python trumps Groovy in readability.
You can write some very interesting code in Groovy with closures and operator overloading and whatnot.
These languages are used for convenience and speed on ancillary code...stuff that can be switched out on the fly if need be. None of it is in production. I don't think I would put either in production unless it was as a stopgap to get something critical out of the door in a major hurry or as a proof of concept or prototype.
And in the case of putting it in actual production, it would have to be in the most dire of circumstances and I would assign someone to rewrite it in pure Java for the next release. I am 98% sure that either would be fine in production but that 2% is too much unnecessary risk.
We've got several production apps running on Grails (using Groovy as the language). So far, no issues have resulted. As for JVM compatibility, take a look at how little the JVM byte-code has changed in the last 5 years... like 1 instruction was added, and none were made obselete.
Will new versions of Groovy come out in the next year? Yes. Will you be required to change to them? No. Though you might want to, 1.6 is a huge speed improvement.
Which brings us to the major drawback of Groovy, the speed issue. Obviously, Groovy is slower than straight Java. The current number are up to 10 TIMES slower, for certain actions. That said, is your CPU the bottleneck in your app? For us, it's mostly DB access and latency. If it's the same for you, what matter if the CPU spends 200ms processing the page request instead of 35ms?
Is that the only problem with Groovy? Nope. Dynamic languages have refactoring difficulties, since there isn't necessarily a complete class specification anywhere in the code. However, this is partially balanced by the smaller code-size which makes it easier to find the places to modify the code.
Anyway, Groovy is a perfectly fine language for production uses. Mix it with Java for your "critical" code, if you fear the reliability. That's the BEST part of Groovy... how easy it mixes with Java classes.
I'm currently exploring using Groovy for only writing unit tests. This has the effects of
Allowing the potentially tedious part of writing tests to be done in a syntax that is a bit simpler than Java.
Keeps the Groovy code out of production.
Allows a large portion of the code base to be written in a non-Java language.
Of course, we haven't started yet, but this is at least my way of attempting to introduce alternate JVM languages to our new projects (and possibly existing ones). I have the same concerns you do, and even more so around performance than stability.
Scripting languages evolve "too fast" in the aspect of syntactic features.
If you want a language for the JVM that will stay compatible for
many years,
Java is your only choice ;)
By the way, I don't think that the readability of code is
ensured by a scripting language automatically.
We used Grails/Groovy as our primary backend at my previous company, and from that experience I'd say that I would choose Groovy over Java in most circumstances I am likely to encounter, since it interoperates with Java seamlessly and is otherwise more fun and expressive. Additionally I would expect the database would almost always be the bottleneck of my application rather than language performance, and we didn't encounter any stability issues/bugs with groovy as far as I recall.
But personally it's usually not about Groovy vs Java for me in most cases -- it's about Groovy/Java + available libraries vs. other languages like Python/Jython/JavaScript/Ruby + available libraries. And there are a lot of other considerations there such as strength of community, maturity of relevant technologies for your particular application, etc. In particular, for web development, Grails was decent, but the community seemed lacking. My overall opinion is that I would use python or Node.js going forward. If I needed the JVM I'd use a jython-compatible python web development environment.
I've been playing with Groovy for a month or so. The simplicity is awesome, and the dynamic language features are really cool too. However, speed is definitely an issue. Also, the groovy console really sucks. You cannot do things that you can do e.g. in python. Every once in a while I have to restart the console, reimport, things, etc. It also keeps forgetting the values I put in the variables while in the console mode; somehow mystically they go out of scope. (Is it because of the JVM? I don't know.) I cannot come up with an example from the top of my head, but the behavior I get in the Groovy console is different from the behavior I get in the Grails console, and is different from what I get by just writing code in a script.
A few more warnings. Note that Groovy is almost, but not 100% compatible with Java. For example, this will not compile:
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println( "Hello, world!\n");
}
}
Also take a look at How to get classpath in Groovy?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
A couple of years ago the media was rife with all sorts of articles on
how the idea of code reuse was a simple way to improve productivity
and code quality.
From the blogs and sites I check on a regular basis it seems as though
the idea of "code reuse" has gone out of fashion. Perhaps the 'code
reuse' advocates have all joined the SOA crowd instead? :-)
Interestingly enough, when you search for 'code reuse' in Google the
second result is titled:
"Internal Code Reuse Considered Dangerous"!
To me the idea of code reuse is just common sense, after all look at
the success of the apache commons project!
What I want to know is:
Do you or your company try and reuse code?
If so how and at what level, i.e. low level api, components or
shared business logic? How do you or your company reuse code?
Does it work?
Discuss?
I am fully aware that there are many open source libs available and that anyone who has used .NET or the Java has reused code in some form. That is common sense!
I was referring more to code reuse within an organizations rather than across a community via a shared lib etc.
I originally asked;
Do you or your company try and reuse code?
If so how and at what level, i.e. low level api, components or shared business logic? How do you or your company reuse code?
From where I sit I see very few example of companies trying to reuse code internally?
If you have a piece of code which could potentially be shared across a medium size organization how would you go about informing other members of the company that this lib/api/etc existed and could be of benefit?
The title of the article you are referring to is misleading, and is actually a very good read. Code reuse is very beneficial, but there are downsides with everything. Basically, if I remember correctly, the gist of the article is that you are sealing the code in a black box and not revisiting it, so as the original developers leave you lose the knowledge. While I see the point, I don't necessarily agree with it - at least not to a "sky is falling" regard.
We actually group code reuse into more than just reusable classes, we look at the entire enterprise. Things that are more like framework enhancement or address cross-cutting concerns are put into a development framework that all of our applications use (think things like pre- and post-validation, logging, etc.). We also have business logic that is applicable to more than one application, so those sort of things get moved to a BAL core that is accessible anywhere.
I think that the important thing is not to promote things for reuse if they are not going to really be reused. They should be well documented, so that new developers can have a resource to help them come up to speed, as well. Chances are, if the knowledge isn't shared, the code will eventually be reinvented somewhere else and will lead to duplication if you are not rigorous in documentation and knowledge sharing.
We reuse code - in fact, our developers specifically write code that can be reused in other projects. This has paid off quite nicely - we're able to start new projects quickly, and we iteratively harden our core libraries.
But one can't just write code and expect it to be re-used; code reuse requires communication among team members and other users so people know what code is available, and how to use it.
The following things are needed for code reuse to work effectively:
The code or library itself
Demand for the code across multiple projects or efforts
Communication of the code's features/capabilities
Instructions on how to use the code
A commitment to maintaining and improving the code over time
Code reuse is essential. I find that it also forces me to generalize as much as possible, also making code more adaptable to varying situations. Ideally, almost every lower level library you write should be able to adapt to a new set of requirements for a different application.
I think code reuse is being done through open source projects for the most part. Anything that can be reused or extended is being done via libraries. Java has an amazing number of open source libraries available for doing a large number of things. Compare that to C++, and how early on everything would have to be implemented from scratch using MFC or the Win32 API.
We reuse code.
On a small scale we try to avoid code duplication as much as posible. And we have a complete library with a lot of frequently used code.
Normally code is developed for one application. And if it is generic enough, it is promoted to the library. This works excelent.
The idea of code reuse is no longer a novel idea...hence the apparent lack of interest. But it is still very much a good idea. The entire .NET framework and the Java API are good examples of code reuse in action.
We have grown accustomed to developing OO libraries of code for our projects and reusing them in other projects. Its a part of the natural life cycle of an idea. It is hotly debated for a while and then everyone accepts and there is no reason for further discussion.
Of course we reuse code.
There are a near infinite amount of packages, libraries and shared objects available for all languages, with whole communities of developers behing them supporting and updating.
I think the lack of "media attention" is due to the fact that everyone is doing it, so it's no longer worth writing about. I don't hear as many people raising awareness of Object-Oriented Programming and Unit Testing as I used to either. Everyone is already aware of these concepts (whether they use them or not).
Level of media attention to an issue has little to do with its importance, whether we're talking software development or politics! It's important to avoid wasting development effort by reinventing (or re-maintaining!) the wheel, but this is so well-known by now that an editor probably isn't going to get excited by another article on the subject.
Rather than looking at the number of current articles and blog posts as a measure of importance (or urgency) look at the concepts and buzz-phrases that have become classics or entered the jargon (another form of reuse!) For example, Google for uses of the DRY acronym for good discussion on the many forms of redundancy that can be eliminated in software and development processes.
There's also a role for mature judgment regarding costs of reuse vs. where the benefits are achieved. Some writers advocate waiting to worry about reuse until a second or third use actually emerges, rather than spending effort to generalize bit of code the first time it is written.
My personal view, based on the practise in my company:
Do you or your company try and reuse code?
Obviously, if we have another piece of code that already fits our needs we will reuse it. We don't go out of our way to use square pegs in round holes though.
If so how and at what level, i.e. low level api, components or shared business logic? How do you or your company reuse code?
At every level. It is written into our coding standards that developers should always assume their code will be reused - even if in reality that is highly unlikely. See below
If your OO model is good, your API probably reflects your business domain, so reusable classes probably equates to reusable business logic without additional effort.
For actual reuse, one key point is knowing what code is already available. We resolve this by having everything documented in a central location. We just need a little discipline to ensure that the documentation is up-to-date and searchable in a meaningful way.
Does it work?
Yes, but not because of the potential or actual reuse! In reality, beyond a few core libraries and UI components, there isn't a large amount of reuse.
In my personal opinion, the real value is in making the code reusable. In doing so, aside from a hopefully cleaner API, the code will (a) be documented sufficiently for another developer to use it without trawling the source code, and (b) it will also be replaceable. These points are a great benefit to on-going software maintenance.
Do you or your company try and reuse code? If so how and at what
level, i.e. low level api, components or shared business logic? How do
you or your company reuse code?
I used to work in a codebase with uber code reuse, but it was difficult to maintain because the reused code was unstable. It was prone to design changes and deprecation in ways that cascaded to everything using it. Before that I worked in a codebase with no code reuse where the seniors actually encouraged copying and pasting as a way to reuse even application-specific code, so I got to see the two extremities and I have to say that one isn't necessarily much better than the other when taken to the extremes.
And I used to be an uber bottom-up kind of programmer. You ask me to build something specific and I end up building generalized tools. Then using those tools, I build more complex generalized tools, then start building DIP abstractions to express the design requirements for the lower-level tools, then I build even more complex tools and repeat, and at some point I start writing code that actually does what you want me to do. And as counter-productive as that sounded, I was pretty fast at it and could ship complex products in ways that really surprised people.
Problem was the maintenance over the months, years! After I built layers and layers of these generalized libraries and reused the hell out of them, each one wanted to serve a much greater purpose than what you asked me to do. Each layer wanted to solve the world's hunger needs. So each one was very ambitious: a math library that wants to be amazing and solve the world's hunger needs. Then something built on top of the math library like a geometry library that wants to be amazing and solve the world's hunger needs. You know something's wrong when you're trying to ship a product but your mind is mulling over how well your uber-generalized geometry library works for rendering and modeling when you're supposed to be working on animation because the animation code you're working on needs a few new geometry functions.
Balancing Everyone's Needs
I found in designing these uber-generalized libraries that I had to become obsessed with the needs of every single team member, and I had to learn how raytracing worked, how fluids dynamics worked, how the mesh engine worked, how inverse kinematics worked, how character animation worked, etc. etc. etc. I had to learn how to do pretty much everyone's job on the team because I was balancing all of their specific needs in the design of these uber generalized libraries I left behind while walking a tightrope balancing act of design compromises from all the code reuse (trying to make things better for Bob working on raytracing who is using one of the libraries but without hurting John too much who is working on physics who is also using it but without complicating the design of the library too much to make them both happy).
It got to a point where I was trying to parametrize bounding boxes with policy classes so that they could be stored either as center and half-size as one person wanted or min/max extents as someone else wanted, and the implementation was getting convoluted really fast trying to frantically keep up with everyone's needs.
Design By Committee
And because each layer was trying to serve such a wide range of needs (much wider than we actually needed), they found many reasons to require design changes, sometimes by committee-requested designs (which are usually kind of gross). And then those design changes would cascade upwards and affect all the higher-level code using it, and maintenance of such code started to become a real PITA.
I think you can potentially share more code in a like-minded team. Ours wasn't like-minded at all. These are not real names but I'd have Bill here who is a high-level GUI programmer and scripter who creates nice user-end designs but questionable code with lots of hacks, but it tends to be okay for that type of code. I got Bob here who is an old timer who has been programming since the punch card era who likes to write 10,000 line functions with gotos in them and still doesn't get the point of object-oriented programming. I got Joe here who is like a mathematical wizard but writes code no one else can understand and always make suggestions which are mathematically aligned but not necessarily so efficient from a computational standpoint. Then I got Mike here who is in outer space who wants us to port the software to iPhones and thinks we should all follow Apple's conventions and engineering standards.
Trying to satisfy everyone's needs here while coming up with a decent design was, probably in retrospect, impossible. And in everyone trying to share each other's code, I think we became counter-productive. Each person was competent in an area but trying to come up with designs and standards which everyone is happy with just lead to all kinds of instability and slowed everyone down.
Trade-Offs
So these days I've found the balance is to avoid code reuse for the lowest-level things. I use a top-down approach from the mid-level, perhaps (something not too far divorced from what you asked me to do), and build some independent library there which I can still do in a short amount of time, but the library doesn't intend to produce mini-libs that try to solve the world's hunger needs. Usually such libraries are a little more narrow in purpose than the lower-level ones (ex: a physics library as opposed to a generalized geometry-intersection library).
YMMV, but if there's anything I've learned over the years in the hardest ways possible, it's that there might be a balancing act and a point where we might want to deliberately avoid code reuse in a team setting at some granular level, abandoning some generality for the lowest-level code in favor of decoupling, having malleable code we can better shape to serve more specific rather than generalized needs, and so forth -- maybe even just letting everyone have a little more freedom to do things their own way. But of course all of this is with the aim of still producing a very reusable, generalized library, but the difference is that the library might not decompose into the teeniest generalized libraries, because I found that crossing a certain threshold and trying to make too many teeny, generalized libraries starts to actually become an extremely counter-productive endeavor in the long term -- not in the short term, but in the long run and broad scheme of things.
If you have a piece of code which could potentially be shared across a
medium size organization how would you go about informing other
members of the company that this lib/api/etc existed and could be of
benefit?
I actually am more reluctant these days and find it more forgivable if colleagues do some redundant work because I would want to make sure that code does something fairly useful and non-trivial and is also really well-tested and designed before I try to share it with people and accumulate a bunch of dependencies to it. The design should have very, very few reasons to require any changes from that point onwards if I share it with the rest of the team.
Otherwise it could cause more grief than it actually saves.
I used to be so intolerant of redundancy (in code or efforts) because it appeared to translate to a product that was very buggy and explosive in memory use. But I zoomed in too much on redundancy as the key problem, when really the real problem was poor quality, hastily-written code, and a lack of solid testing. Well-tested, reliable, efficient code wouldn't suffer that problem to nearly as great of a degree even if some people duplicate, say, some math functions here and there.
One of the common sense things to look at and remember that I didn't at the time is how we don't mind some redundancy when we use a very solid third party library. Chances are that you guys use a third party library or two that has some redundant work with what your team is doing. But we don't mind in those cases because the third party library is great and well-tested. I recommend applying that same mindset to your own internal code. The goal should be to create something awesome and well-tested, not to fuss over a little bit of redundancy here and there as I mistakenly did long ago.
So these days I've shifted my intolerance towards a lack of testing instead. Instead of getting upset over redundant efforts, I find it much more productive to get upset over other people's lack of unit and integration testing! :-D
While I think code reuse is valuable, I can see where this sentiment is rooted. I've worked on a lot of projects where much extra care was taken to create re-usable code that was then never reused. Of course reuse is much preferable to duplicate code, but I have seen a lot of very extenisve object models created with the goal of using the objects across the enterprise in multiple projects (kind of the way the same service in SOA can be used in different apps) but have never seen the objects actually used more than once. Maybe I just haven't been part of organizations taking good advantage of the principle of reuse.
The two software projects I've worked on have both been long term development. One is about 10 years old, the other has been around for over 30 years, rewritten in a couple versions of Fortran along the way. Both make extensive reuse of code, but both rely very little on external tools or code libraries. DRY is a big mantra on the newer project, which is in C++ and lends itself more easily to doing that in practice.
Maybe the better question is when do we NOT reuse code these days? We are either in a state on building using someone elses observed "best practices" or prediscovered "design patterns" or just actually building on legacy code, libraries, or copying.
It seems the degree to which code A is reused to make code B is often based around how much the ideas in code A taken to code B are abstracted into design patterns/idioms/books/fleeting thoughts/actual code/libraries. The hard part is in applying all those good ideas to your actual code.
Non-technical types get overzealous about the reuse thing. They don't understand why everything can't be copy-pasted. They don't understand why the greemelfarm needs a special adapter to communicate the same information that it used to to the old system to the new system, and that, unfortunately we can't change either due to a bazillion other reasons.
I think techies have been reusing from day 1 in the same way musicians have been reusing from day 1. Its an ongoing organic evolution and sythesis that will keep ongoing.
Code reuse is an extremely important issue - where code is not reused, projects take longer and are harder for new team members to get into.
However, writing reusable code takes longer.
Personally, I try to write all my code in a reusable way, this takes longer, but it results in the fact that most of my code has become official infrastructures in my organization and that new projects based on these infrastructures take significantly less time.
The danger in reusing code, is if the reused code is not written as an infrastructure - in a general and encapsulated manner with as few as possible assumptions and as much as possible documentation and unit testing, that the code can end up doing unexpected things.
Also, if bugs are found and fixed, or features added, these changes are rarely returned to the source code, resulting in different versions of the reused code, that no one knows of or understands.
The solution is:
1. To design and write the code with not only one project in mind, but to think of future requirements and try to make the design flexible enough to cover them with minimal code change.
2. To enclose the code within libraries that are to be used as-is and not modified within using projects.
3. To allow users to view and modify the code of of the library withing its solution (not within the using project's solution).
4. To design future projects to be based on the existing infrastructures, making changes to the infrastructures as necessary.
5. To charge maintaining the infrastructure to all projects, thus keeping the infrastructure funded.
Maven has solved code reuse. I'm completely serious.