Related
The Go talk 2009 pdf has a comment to explain why they came up with the go language :
No new major systems language in a decade.
What's the meaning of systems language?
Is it a language that is supposed to run on target system by generating native binary?
Is it a language that can build operating system on its own?
I can see C#/Java is `not' a systems language, and C/C++ is.
It's a rough, informal distinction, but the idea is that there are "application programming languages," targeted at programmers who develop shrinkwrapped business applications, and "systems programming languages," targeted at programmers who program tools for other programmers (compilers, etc.) and low-level software such as OS kernels, device drivers, etc.
In short, most (recently-invented, anyway) languages are designed to make it easier to develop user-facing software for dealing with some non-computing domain---finance, engineering, etc. Systems programming languages are those, such as C, FORTH, Go, etc. which are intended or at least suitable for programming in the domain of computing.
These often, but do not always, feature compilation to native code, loose type systems which permit extensive "punning," and unmanaged memory access through pointers or an equivalent construct.
Look here? Sorry if this comes off as sorta a throw away link, but really this should be all you need. Unless you are asking for something else more specific.
A reason C# is definitely not a systems language is its dependency on .NET.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
in which area is c++ mostly used?
I started off with C in school, went to Java and now I primarily use the P's(Php, Perl, Python) so my exposure to the lower level languages have all but disappeared. I would like to get back into it but I can never justify using C over Perl or Python. What real-world apps are being built with these languages? Any suggestions if I want to dive back in, what can I do with C/C++ that I can't easily do with Perl/Python?
To borrow some text from the answer I had for another related question:
Device drivers in native code.
High performance floating point number crunching (i.e. SIMD).
Easy ability to interface with assembly language routines.
Manage memory manually for extended execution runs.
Most of my work has been C and C++. I studied computer engineering in school and worked with embedded devices. My Master's degree had an emphasis in graphics and visualization. One of our visualization apps was written in Python, but for the most part, graphics demands C/C++ for the speed. I now work with embedded devices running Windows Mobile and Windows CE - all C++, though you can do a lot with C#. I previously worked in simulations, which was all C++ code on the backend. C++ is still king for time-sensitive IO, embedded applications, graphics and simulations.
Basically, if you need tight control of timing, you go lower level. Or if you need light-weight (ie, small program size, small memory footprint)
Somewhat unscientifically I took a look on Sourceforge and the top twenty projects/language break-down is currently thus:
Java(43,199)
C++(34,313)
PHP(28,333)
C(26,711)
C#(12,298)
Python(12,222)
JavaScript(10,307)
Perl(8,931)
Unix Shell(3,618)
Delphi/Kylix(3,353)
Visual Basic(3,044)
Visual Basic .NET(2,513)
Assembly(2,283)
JSP(1,891)
Ruby(1,731)
PL/SQL(1,669)
Objective C(1,424)
ASP.NET(1,344)
Tcl(1,241)
ActionScript(1,164)
Perl + Python together still total less than C alone. I have no idea why Java is so high, I know of no single Java developer and have not seen a single Java project, but I am sure someone is using it! For probably the same reason, you are not seeing much C/C++, you are just not working in a domain where it figures highly. I work in embedded systems where C and C++ are ubiquitous and Python comes nowhere. Different languages are encountered to different extents in different worlds.
You ask what you can do with C/C++ that you cannot do easily with Perl/Python; well the answer is plenty, real-time embedded systems for one; but if that is not what you want/need to do, then there is no reason to. On the other hand I might ask the reverse; I'd use C++ for things you might use Python for, simply because for me it would be easier and quicker (than learning a new language and getting the tools working)
C/C++ can be, and is, used for nearly all "types" of programs.
There are some major advantages to C and C++:
Potentially better performance
Easier to build interoperable libraries, especially if working with libraries usable from multiple languages.
well the interpreters for your "P's" languages are most certainly written in c/c++. Most OS code is written in C/C++. On the application side, if you are into games, they are generally written in c/c++. Anything that needs high performance and or low memory is a good candidate.
I've used Gsoap, a c++ soap client implementation for a web service that got HUGE traffic.
Most desktop/console applications with a bias toward graphics rely heavily on C++. This includes CAD software and AAA video games, among other things.
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 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I've been writing software in Java for many years now, but it was always for internal applications that would be deployed to a server. I'd like to get into writing desktop applications now but I don't know where to start. I've written a few Java/Swing applications but again they were for internal use.
My understanding is that Java and other semi-compiled and interpreted languages are too easy to reverse engineer, making them unsuitable for commercial software. I am aware that there are compilers for Java and some other interpreted language, but I've also heard that they are pricey and/or unreliable.
Assuming I start a microISV and wish to develop and sell applications to a broad audience, what's my best bet? I would prefer something that can be written close to once, and compiled for different operating systems but I am not opposed to .NET and a Windows-only audience if other languages would compromise the experience (installation ease & user experience) in Windows. My only issue there is that I don't have a large starting budget and paying out the wazoo for the required development tools is not really in the cards.
Why would people want to reverse engineer your software? They might pirate it, but you can't prevent pirating no matter what language you use. I doubt you have a top-secret algorithm that you're trying to hide either, in which case reverse-engineering might be an issue.
You should go with whatever you know best, and Java can work just fine.
If you are intent on switching to another language, I recommend taking a look at Qt. Qt is a free and open-source cross-platform toolkit for C++ that allows you to write applications in that will compile and run on Windows, Mac, and Linux with minimal effort. You CAN write commercial software for free with Qt with its LGPL license.
Edit: GCJ compiles Java to native code, but only supports Java 1.4.
Well, if you're trying to be an Independent Service Vendor -- and not a Software Vendor -- then in a sense it doesn't matter if you use a language like Java which can be decompiled. Because you'd be selling yourself as the best person to integrate and customize the software for your clients. The software is the delivery mechanism for the thing that will actually make you the money: you and your skills. Plenty of companies make a profit by giving away their software for free and contracting their services to set it up for their clients. You can mitigate the Java decompiling issue somewhat by using an obfuscator, but it's kind of fighting the wrong battle.
If you intent to make your money selling software and not service, then Java would be a relatively risky route to take.
It all depends on your business plan.
If you are starting a one-man company, then you are selling your personal expertise. So the language you use must be the one (or maybe two) that you are most familiar with and expert in. I'm surprised you felt it necessary to ask this.
Any code can be decompiled to some degree. I think you can obfuscate Java to a degree that will deter the casual user... but I think the other people hit the nail on the head. Of all the reasons not to use Java, the ease of decompiling should be very very low on your list. If that is all that is stopping you, go for it! Google Java obfuscater and you will find something.
I'm skeptical about the risk of reverse engineering a complex piece of software written in Java, but for purposes of your question I'm willing to stipulate it. I assume the same issues rule out any other language that is implemented only on the JVM.
The most salient aspects of Java are
Static type system
Class-based object system
Automatic memory management
No freestanding functions or modules outside the class/interface system
Generics
This combination could be replicated in a language like C#, but I assume the same objections you have about distributing JVM bytecode also apply to MSIL bytecodes.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a language that has all these features. Here are some nearby languages:
C++ has everything except automatic memory management, plus it allows freestanding functions. However the C++ generic mechanism (templates) is not for the faint of heart, and it doesn't (yet) support modular typechecking. Lots more flexibility than Java but also lots more ways to shoot your foot off. Use with caution.
Modula-3 has all of the above but it's essentially a dead language, plus like C++ there's no modular type checking for the generics.
I'm not familiar enough with Eiffel to be able to make good comparisons, but I think it's worth looking into.
Delphi may also be worth looking into. It seems to have everything above except generics. It's primarily a proprietary Windows environment (formerly known as Object Pascal), but there seems to exist an open-source 'Free Pascal' compiler that supports Delphi.
There are many object-oriented languages with automatic memory management and dynamic typing, among which one might highlight ruby, Python, and Smalltalk. None of these really compiles well and reliably to standalone native machine code, although all push toward some form of experimental compilation. And they are all dynamically typed, which is quite different from what you're used to.
If I were in your position I would probably go ahead an use Java and accept some risk of reverse engineering. Decompilers aren't as wonderful as you might think, and they don't produce wildly maintainable code, either. But if you really want to be able to produce native machine code, I would investigate Delphi and Eiffel. (I myself would use Modula-3, but that's because I once invested substantial effort in learning it. It's a very well designed language for its niche, but the user community is about gone and I think it's a dead letter. Pity.)
I'm interested in creating a visual programming language which can aid non-programmers(like children) to write simple programs, much like Labview or Simulink allows engineers to connect functional blocks together without the knowledge of how they are internally built. Is this called programming by demonstration? What are example applications?
What would be an ideal platform which can allow me to do this(it can be a desktop or a web app)
Check out Google Blockly. Blockly allows a developer to create their own blocks, translations (generators) to virtually any programming language (or even JSON/XML) and includes a graphical interface to allow end users to create their own programs.
Brief summary:
Blockly was influenced by App Inventor, which itself was based off Scratch
App Inventor now uses Blockly (?!)
So does the BBC microbit
Blockly itself runs in a browser (typically) using javascript
Focused on (visual) language developers
language independent blocks and generators
includes a Block Factory - which allows visual programming to create new Blocks (?!) - I didn't find this useful myself...except for understanding
includes generators to map blocks to javascript/python
e.g. These blocks:
Generated this code:
See https://developers.google.com/blockly/about/showcase for more details
Best wishes - Andy
The adventure on which you are about to embark is the design and implementation of a visual programming language. I don't know of any good textbooks in this area, but there are an IEEE conference and refereed journal devoted to this field. Margaret Burnett of Oregon State University, who is a highly regarded authority, has assembled a bibliography on visual programming languages; I suggest you start there.
You might consider writing to Professor Burnett for advice. If you do, I hope you will report the results back here.
There is Scratch written by MIT which is much like what you are looking for.
http://scratch.mit.edu/
A restricted form of programming is dataflow (aka. flow-based) programming, where the application is built from components by connecting their ports. Depending on the platform and purpose, the components are simple (like a path selector) or complex (like an image transformator). There are several dataflow systems (just I've made two), some of them has no visual editor, some of them are just a part of a bigger system, and there're some which don't even mention the approach. (Did you think, that make, MS-Excel and Unix Shell pipes are some kind of this?)
All modern digital synths based on dataflow approach, there's an amazing visual example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h-RhyopUmc
AFAIK, there's no dataflow system for definitly educational purposes. For more information, you should check this site: http://flowbased.org/start
There is a new open source library out there: TUM.CMS.VPLControl. Get it here. This library may serve as a basis for your purposes.
There is Snap written by UC Berkeley. It is another option to understand VPL.
Pay attention on CoSpaces Edu. It is an online platform that enables the creation of virtual worlds and learning experiences whilst providing a more flexible approach to the learning curriculum.
There is visual coding named "CoBlocks".
Learners can animate and code their creations with "CoBlocks" before exploring and sharing them in mobile VR.
Also It is possible to use JavaScript or TypeScript.
If you want to go ahead with this, the platform that I suggest is the one used to implement Scratch (which already does what you want, IMHO), which is Squeak Smalltalk. The Squeak environment was designed with visual programming explicitly in mind. It's free, and Smalltalk syntax can learned in half an hour. Learning the gigantic class library may take just a little longer.
The blocks editor which was most support and development for microbit is microsoft makecode
Scratch is a horrible language to teach programming (i'm biased, but check out Pipes Visual Programming Language)
What you seem to want to do sounds a lot like Functional Block programming (as in functional block programming language IEC 61499 and other VPLs for mechatronics development). There is already a lot of research into VPLs so you might want to make sure that A) what your are trying to do has an audience and B) what you are trying to do can be done easily.
It sounds a bit negative in tone, but a good place to start to test the plausibility of your idea is by reading Davor Babic's short blog post at http://blog.davor.se/blog/2012/09/09/Visual-programming/
As far as what platform to use - you could use pretty much anything, just make sure it has good graphic libraries (You could use Java with Swing - if you like pain - or Python with TKinter) just depends what you are familiar with. Just keep in mind who you want to eventually launch the language to (if its iOS, then look at using Objective-C, etc.)
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
In every technical publication, and on this site too, people are always comparing OO languages to Smalltalk. My experience is in Java: is Smalltalk so important that I should study it?
Smalltalk was one of the earliest object-oriented (OO) languages (with others like Simula and Eiffel) and can be said to be extremely "pure" in an OO sense:
Everything is an object and objects are only communicated with via the sending of messages
No primitives (no ints, booleans etc)
No control structures (no for, while, if etc). Sounds impossible but it's true!
No statics
It also pioneered some other, now common, stuff:
the virtual machine (and JIT compilation)
Debugging by inspection
"Hotswapping" running code
the modern IDE
Closures
Duck typing
Model-View Controller (MVC) architecture for UIs
Test-driven development (TDD) and agile methodology
And there are other things connected with Smalltalk which didn't really make it into the mainstream:
"Image"-based system rather than file-based.
Object-oriented databases
And it's fair to say that the Java collections API and the apache-commons collections API are heavily influenced by Smalltalk.
I wouldn't say that you should learn Smalltalk per se, but a familiarity with the fundamentals of these features (now present in many other languages) is surely advantageous to you.
Note that there are currently only 123 questions on here about the language, which was originally intended as an educational language (i.e. aimed at children) by its creator, Alan Kay. It is not particularly heavily used anymore. That's not to say it isn't used. JPMorgan, for example, has a large exotic derivatives risk-management system written in it.
Smalltalk has many brilliant innovations - things we're all taking for granted today, including:
being the first ever IDE
providing programmatic support for a GUI with a mouse If you learn Smalltalk GUI programming, you really will have understood MVC properly.
being built out of a small number of powerful ideas that work together extremely well
The Smalltalk way isn't to crash out on unexpected behaviour - it's to adapt. If you send a message to an object that doesn't understand it, the debugger comes up and invites you to write that method... so it provides excellent support for incremental development.
The IDE, the app that you're writing and your data are all part of the same system - so you can write your own tools and debug instrumentation far more easily.
The TDD toolset in Smalltalk is still better than any other language (see below).
Squeak Smalltalk has quite a bit of cutting-edge design research:
the morphic UI - you can get familiar with the concept of "liveness"
the seaside web framework - learn what a continuation server is and how it's radically different
Squeak has a strong connection with the OLPC software (one laptop per child) project - and could yet have a big influence on the world.
Find out what a "trait" is...
Play with the radical 3D immersive environment called Open Croquet.
Because Smalltalk is a smaller, simpler and more consistent language, with it's own built-in environment it's a much less confusing place to start teaching OOP. People who go this route end up being better Java, Ruby and C# programmers because they can learn basic OOP without all the messy inconsistencies of mainstream languages.
Some commercial Smalltalks have amazing, multi-node distributed OO database environments. I'm thinking about Gemstone.
Want to know the difference between Model-View-Controller and Model-View-Presenter - look at Dolphin Smalltalk...
The single most important reason to learn Smalltalk today is that extreme programming and scrum both got invented in the Smalltalk community... and the highly interactive style of programming you experience in Smalltalk is simpler, more powerful and direct than anything you can do with Java or C# or Ruby... and you can't really understand how well agile methods can work until you've tried to do extreme programming in Smalltalk. Few other languages (no mainstream ones anyway) have a comparable feature set.
... to really understand what TDD can be you need to use SUnit. JUnit just shows you where your tests failed. SUnit actually allows you click into the debugger at the point where the test failed and see the actual objects and how they're connected so you can see, live in the debugger how the code failed and fix it right there.
Yes, Smalltalk is so important you should study it. Why? You can understand object-oriented programming in pure, simple form. What people forget is that the Smalltalk-80 "Blue Book" has only about 90 pages devoted to the language—the language is just that simple. The other 300 pages talk about the predefined class hierarchy, which is a masterpiece of design for a class-based, object-oriented language that uses single inheritance. You will get a much deeper understanding of objects (e.g., classes are objects, and they have metaclasses, and so on off to infinity... except the knot is carefully tied to keep the system finite) than you would ever get from studying a hybrid language like Java or C++. Smalltalk matters not just because of its history but because of its simplicity:
Simple enough so you can understand the entire language and the libraries
Shows one idea (objects are all you need) pushed to its logical extreme
Everybody has something to learn from Smalltalk!
Smalltalk is one of the first two original OOP languages, the other being Simula-67. Consequently, there are two large families - the statically typed model centered around method invocation, pioneered by Simula (C++, Java, C# all belong here), and the dynamically typed model centered around message passing, pioneered by Smalltalk (Python, Ruby belong here).
Today, Smalltalk isn't particularly important on its own - there are some people still using it to write stuff, but it's definitely not mainstream. Learning it will give you some insight in how and why OOP evolved, however.
I spent about 5 minutes in a presentation at a conference last month on Smalltalk's history and influence. See Image-based development with Smalltalk. One of the more foreign concepts to today's programmers is the "image-based" development. There are some good analogies, including a DBMS and a spreadsheet.
Yes. Download the seaside one-click image, start using it with the tutorial from James Foster and you will learn at least:
how web applications should be build
how debugging is supposed to work
I agree with the others. I'm not sure if it's important per se, but it is COOL (imho).
I love that there are no loops or conditionals in the language. If-then-else is a message sent to a boolean object. Objects of type True do one thing, objects of type False do another. (Yes, True and False are subtypes of Boolean, with a single value each, true and false respectively).
It starts out being kind of counter-intuitive, but it does give you a very interesting, and deep, view of how OO programming should work...
Not only was it one of the first, Smalltalk remains to this day a paragon of OO language design. The more popular languages that came later — C++, Java, even Objective-C — all have more primitive object-orientation and are more restrictive than good old Smalltalk. Smalltalk had pervasive first-class objects, great support for runtime introspection, very natural use of duck typing and closures that worked better than I've seen in any non-functional language. I mean, we're talking about a language that had no native control structures (if, while, etc.) but was able to create them out of its object system in a way that worked seamlessly. How cool is that?
I wouldn't recommend Smalltalk for any intensive desktop app development these days (there just isn't a viable implementation IMO), but if you want to see how OO was meant to be and maybe pick up some ideas you can use in your apps, Smalltalk is a great place to look.
If you only know one object-oriented language you should consider learning a second and a third and a fourth in order to gain a broader perspective on programming with objects. Learning Smalltalk will stretch your brain because a lot of the familiar concepts we're used to in other languages (e.g. if-then-else, for(;;), while(), etc) are not there in Smalltalk. There are equivalents, obviously, but Smalltalk does things differently, and learning about different ways to do things is always a good idea.
Good luck.
I've just started to revive my interest in Smalltalk, and in my opinion, there are a few compelling things that are special about Smalltalk:
Highly productive development
environment
Built-in support for Agile/Extreme
programming methodologies
"Pure" object model
Easy to use graphics framework
None of these make it especially useful for people who are not in the software development business. My first exposure to it was when I saw a user interface for an embedded device prototyped on a PC using Smalltalk. This allowed the user interface to be modified and tested very quickly, and when completed, provided the embedded developers an "executable specification" that was far more precise than any document. I'm surprised I haven't seen this technique used far more often than I've observed in my travels during the last 20 years.
Using Smalltalk as a prototyping tool is where my interest lies: I think that given a new problem, different approaches to solving it can be tried and validated very quickly and easily in a Smalltalk environment, and once the desired solution is found it should be relatively mechanical to convert it to Java/C++/C# etc. etc. In fact, for repetitive sorts of things, it might well be possible to use Smalltalk to generate code for parts of the solution in some other target language.
The other thing about SmallTalk is that its alumni include Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham. Their work with SmallTalk spawned automated xUnit testing, software design patterns, CRC Cards and other practices which ed into XP/Agile, etc. So it could be argued that SmallTalk has been a major contributor to the modern programming landscape.
Just two comments:
Smalltalk is not object "oriented", is real objects, only objects and messages in the environment.
Smalltalk is not a language, is an environment that has a language (of the same name), but most of the "magic" here is thanks to the environment (the image).