Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I want a better C. Let me explain:
I do a lot of programming in C, which is required for applications that have real-time needs such as audio programming, robotics, device drivers, etc.
While I love C, one thing that gets on my nerves after having spent a lot of time with Haskell is the lack of a proper type system. That is, as soon as you want to write a more general-purpose function, say something that manipulates a generic pointer, (like say a generic linked list) you have to cast things to void* or whatever, and you loose all type information. It's an all-or-nothing system, which doesn't let you write generic functions without losing all the advantages of type checking.
C++ doesn't solve this. And I don't want to use C++ anyways. I find OO classes and templates to be a headache.
Haskell and its type classes do solve this. You can have semantically useful types, and use type constraints to write functions that operate on classes of types, that don't depend on void.
But the domain I'm working in, I can't use Haskell, because it's not real-time capable--mostly due to garbage collection. GC is needed because it's very difficult to do functional programming, which is allocation-heavy, without automatic memory management. However, there is nothing specifically in the idea of type classes that goes against C's semantics. I want C, but with Haskell's dependable type system, to help me write well-typed systems. However, I really want C: I want to be in control of memory management, I want to know how the data structures are layed out, I want to use (well-typed) pointer arithmetic, I want mutability.
Is there any language like this? If so, why is it not more popular for low-level programming?
Aside: I know there are some small language experiments in this direction, but I'm interested in things that would be really usable in real-world projects. I'm interesting in growing-to-well-developed languages, but not so much "toy" languages.
I should add, I heard of Cyclone, which is interesting, but I couldn't get it to compile for me (Ubuntu) and I haven't heard of any projects actually using it.. any other suggestions in this vein are welcome.
Thanks!
Since nobody brought it up yet: I think the ATS language is a very good candidate for a better C! Especially since you enjoy Haskell and thus functional programming with strong types. Note that ATS seems to be specifically designed for systems programming and hard real-time applications as most of it can do without garbage collection.
If you check the shootout you will find that performance is basically on par with C. I think this is quite impressive since modern c compilers have years and years and years of optimization work behind them while ATS is basically developed by one guy. -- while other languages providing similar safety features usually introduce overhead ATS ensures things entirely at compile time and thus yields very similar performance characteristics as C.
To quote the website:
What is ATS?
ATS is a statically typed programming language that unifies implementation with formal specification. It is equipped with a highly expressive type system rooted in the framework Applied Type System, which gives the language its name. In particular, both dependent types and linear types are available in ATS. The current implementation of ATS (ATS/Anairiats) is written in ATS itself. It can be as efficient as C/C++ (see The Computer Language Benchmarks Game for concrete evidence) and supports a variety of programming paradigms that include:
Functional programming. The core of ATS is a functional language based on eager (aka. call-by-value) evaluation, which can also accommodate lazy (aka. call-by-need) evaluation. The availability of linear types in ATS often makes functional programs written in it run not only with surprisingly high efficiency (when compared to C) but also with surprisingly small (memory) footprint (when compared to C as well).
Imperative programming. The novel and unique approach to imperative programming in ATS is firmly rooted in the paradigm of programming with theorem-proving. The type system of ATS allows many features considered dangerous in other languages (e.g., explicit pointer arithmetic and explicit memory allocation/deallocation) to be safely supported in ATS, making ATS a viable programming language for low-level systems programming.
Concurrent programming. ATS, equipped with a multicore-safe implementation of garbage collection, can support multithreaded programming through the use of pthreads. The availability of linear types for tracking and safely manipulating resources provides an effective means to constructing reliable programs that can take advantage of multicore architectures.
Modular programming. The module system of ATS is largely infuenced by that of Modula-3, which is both simple and general as well as effective in supporting large scale programming.
In addition, ATS contains a subsystem ATS/LF that supports a form of (interactive) theorem-proving, where proofs are constructed as total functions. With this component, ATS advocates a programmer-centric approach to program verification that combines programming with theorem-proving in a syntactically intertwined manner. Furthermore, this component can serve as a logical framework for encoding deduction systems and their (meta-)properties.
What about Nimrod or Vala languages ?
Rust
Another (real) candidate for a better C is The Rust Programming Language.
Unlike some other suggestions, (Go, Nimrod, D, ...) Rust can directly compete with C and C++ because it has manual memory management and does not require garbage collection (see [1]).
What sets Rust apart is that it has safe manual memory management. (The link is to pc walton's blog, one of Rusts main contributors and generally worth a read ;) Among other things, this means it fixes the billion dollar mistake of nullpointers. Many of the other languages suggested here either require garbage collection (Go) or have garbage collection turned on by default and do not provide facilities for safe manual memory management beyond what C++ provides (Nimrod, D).
While Rust has an imperative heart, it does borrow a lot of nice things from functional languages, for example sum types aka tagged unions. It is also really concerned with being a safe and performance oriented language.
[1] Right now there are two main pointer types owned pointers (like std::unique_ptr in C++ but with better support from the typechecker) and managed pointers. As the name suggests the latter do require task-local garbage collection, but there are thoughts to remove them from the language and only provide them as a library.
EDITED to reflect #ReneSacs comment: Garbage collection is not required in D and Nimrod.
I don't know much about Haskell, but if you want a strong type system, take a look at Ada. It is heavily used in embedded systems for aerospace applications. The SIGADA moto is "In strong typing we trust." It won't be of much use, however, if you have to do Windows/Linux type device drivers.
A few reasons it is not so popular:
verbose syntax -- designed to be read, not written
compilers were historically expensive
the relationship to DOD and design committees, which programmers seem to knock
I think the truth is that most programmers don't like strong type systems.
Nim (former Nimrod) has a powerful type system, with concepts and easy generics. It also features extensive compile time mechanisms with templates and macros. It also has easy C FFI and all the low level features that you expect from a system programming language, so you can write your own kernel, for example.
Currently it compiles to C, so you can use it everywhere GCC runs, for example. If you only want to use Nim as better C, you can do it via the --os:standalone compiler switch, that gives you a bare bones standard library, with no OS ties.
For example, to compile to an AVR micro-controller you can use:
nim c --cpu:avr --os:standalone --deadCodeElim:on --genScript x.nim
Nim has a soft real-time GC where you can specify when it runs and the max pause time in microseconds. If you really can't afford the GC, you can disable it completely (--gc:none compiler switch) and use only manual memory management like C, losing most of the standard library, but still retaining the much saner and powerful type system.
Also, tagged pointers are a planned feature, that ensure you don't mix kernel level pointers with user level pointers, for example.
D might offer what you want. It has a very rich type system, but you can still control memory layout if you need to. It has unrestricted pointers like C. It’s garbage collected, but you aren’t forced to use the garbage collector and you can write your own memory management code if you really want.
However, I’m not sure to what extent you can mix the type richness with the low-level approach you want to use.
Let us know if you find something that suits your needs.
I'm not sure what state Cyclone is in, but that provided more safety for standard C. D can be also considered a "better C" to some extent, but its status is not very clear with its split-brain in standard library.
My language of choice as a "better C" is OOC. It's still young, but it's quite interesting. It gives you the OO without C++'s killer complexity. It gives you easy access to C interfaces (you can "cover" C structs and use them normally when calling external libraries / control the memory layout this way). It uses GC by default, but you can turn it off if you really don't want it (but that means you cannot use the standard library collections anymore without leaking).
The other comment mentioned Ada which I forgot about, but that reminded me: there's Oberon, which is supposed to be a safe(-er) language, but that also contains garbage collection mechanisms.
You might also want to look at BitC. It’s a serious language and not a toy, but it isn’t ready yet and probably won’t be ready in time to be of any use to you.
Nonetheless, a specific design goal of BitC is to support low-level development in conjunction with a Haskell-style type system. It was originally designed to support development of the Coyotos microkernel. I think that Coyotos was killed off, but BitC is still apparently being developed.
C++ doesn't solve this. And I don't want to use C++ anyways. I find OO classes and templates to be a headache.
Get over this attitude. Just use C++. You can start with coding C in C++ and keep gradually moving to better style.
A lot of languages (perhaps all of them) are designed to make writing programs easier. They all have different domains, and aim to simplify developing programs in these domains (C makes developing low-level programs easier, Java makes developing complex business logic easier, et al.). Perhaps other purposes are sacrificed in sake of writing and maintaining programs in an easier, more natural, less error-prone way.
Are there any languages specifically designed to make verification of source code--i.e. static analysis--easier? Of course, capability to write common programs for modern machines should also persist.
One of the design goals of Ada was to support a certian amount of formal verification. It was moderately successful, but verification didn't exactly take off like they were hoping. Luckily Ada is good for far more than that. Sadly, that hasn't helped it much either...
There's an Ada subset called Spark that keeps this alive today. Praxis sells a development suite built around it.
Are there any languages specifically designed to make verification of source code easier?
This was a vague goal of both the CLU and ML languages, but the only language design I know that takes static verification really seriously is Spark Ada.
Dijkstra's language of guarded commands (as described in Discipline of Programming) was designed to support static verification, but it was explicitly not supposed to be implemented.
Gerard Holzmann's Promela language was also designed for static analysis by the model checker SPIN, but again it's not executable.
Auditors in the E language provide a built-in means of writing code analyses within the language itself and requiring that some section of code pass some static check. You might also be interested in the related-work part of the paper.
I haven’t used it myself, so I can’t speak with any authority, but I understand that the Eiffel programming language was designed to use Code by Contracts, which would make static analysis much easier. I don’t know if that counts or not.
There is SAIL, the Static Analysis Intermediate Language or Flexibo
One has two problems in "making verification of source code easier". One is languages in which you don't do gross things such as arbitrary cases (such as C).
Another is specifying what you want to verify, for that you need a good assertions languages.
While many languages have proposed such assertions languages,
I think the EDA community has been pushing the envelope most effectively with temporal specifications. The "Property Specification Language" is a standard; you can learn more from P1850 Standard for PSL: Property Specification Language (IEEE-1850). One idea behind PSL is that you can add it to existing EDA languages; I think the EDA community has been incorporating into the EDA langauges as time goes by.
I've often wished for something like PSL to embed in conventional computer software.
Static verification is a bad start for this task. It's based on an assumption that it's possible to verify correctness of the program automatically. It's not feasible in real world, and expecting the program to check arbitrarily complex code without any hints is just plain dumb. Usually software for static verification ends up requiring hints all over source code, and in the end generates lots of false positives and false negatives. It has some niche, but that's it. (See introduction to "Types and programming languages" by Pierce)
While these kind of tools were developed by engineers for their own simple purposes, real solution have been baking in an academy. It was found that types in statically typed programming languages are equivalent to logic statements given everything goes smooth and language doesn't have some kind of bad behaviour. This is called "Curry-Howard correspondence", and the embedding of logic into types is "Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov logic". The most powerful proofs are possible only in the languages with powerful types: dependent types. If we forget all this terminology for a while, this means that we can write programs that carry proofs of its own correctness, and these proofs are checked while the program gets compiled, with no executable file given in case of failure.
The positive side of this approach is that you never get any false negatives, i.e. compiled program is guaranteed to work properly according to the specification. Even without extra proofs about specification, programs in dependently-typed languages are less prone to mistakes, because divisions by zero, unhandled exceptions and overflows just never end up in an executable program.
Always writing such proofs by hand is tedious. For that there are "tactics", i.e. programs that generate proofs of correctness. These are almost equivalent to programs for static verification, but, unlike them, are required to generate formal proof.
There is a range of dependently-typed languages for different purposes: Coq, Agda, Idris, Epigram, Cayenne etc.
Tactics are implemented in Coq and probably several more languages. Also Coq is the most mature of them all, with infrastructure including libraries like Bedrock.
In case C code extraction from Coq is not enough for your requirements, you can use ATS, which is on par in performance with C.
Haskell employs weak form of Curry-Howard correspondence: it works fine, unless you start writing failing or forever-looping programs. In case your requirements are not that hard to write formal proofs, consider using Haskell.
Jon Skeet posted this blog post, in which he states that he is going to be asking why the dynamic part of languages are so good. So i thought i'd preemptively ask on his behalf: What makes them so good?
The two fundamentally different approaches to types in programming languages are static types and dynamic types. They enable very different programming paradigms and they each have their own benefits and drawbacks.
I'd highly recommend Chris Smith's excellent article What to Know Before Debating Type Systems for more background on the subject.
From that article:
A static type system is a mechanism by which a compiler examines source code and assigns labels (called "types") to pieces of the syntax, and then uses them to infer something about the program's behavior. A dynamic type system is a mechanism by which a compiler generates code to keep track of the sort of data (coincidentally, also called its "type") used by the program. The use of the same word "type" in each of these two systems is, of course, not really entirely coincidental; yet it is best understood as having a sort of weak historical significance. Great confusion results from trying to find a world view in which "type" really means the same thing in both systems. It doesn't. The better way to approach the issue is to recognize that:
Much of the time, programmers are trying to solve the same problem with
static and dynamic types.
Nevertheless, static types are not limited to problems solved by dynamic
types.
Nor are dynamic types limited to problems that can be solved with
static types.
At their core, these two techniques are not the same thing at all.
The main thing is that you avoid a lot of redundancy that comes from making the programmer "declare" this, that, and the other. A similar advantage could be obtained through type inferencing (boo does that, for example) but not quite as cheaply and flexibly. As I wrote in the past...:
complete type checking or inference
requires analysis of the whole
program, which may be quite
impractical -- and stops what Van Roy
and Haridi, in their masterpiece
"Concepts, Techniques and Models of
Computer Programming", call "totally
open programming". Quoting a post of
mine from 2004: """ I love the
explanations of Van Roy and Haridi, p.
104-106 of their book, though I may or
may not agree with their conclusions
(which are basically that the
intrinsic difference is tiny -- they
point to Oz and Alice as interoperable
languages without and with static
typing, respectively), all the points
they make are good. Most importantly,
I believe, the way dynamic typing
allows real modularity (harder with
static typing, since type discipline
must be enforced across module
boundaries), and "exploratory
computing in a computation model that
integrates several programming
paradigms".
"Dynamic typing is recommended", they
conclude, "when programs must be as
flexible as possible". I recommend
reading the Agile Manifesto to
understand why maximal flexibility is
crucial in most real-world
application programming -- and
therefore why, in said real world
rather than in the more academic
circles Dr. Van Roy and Dr. Hadidi
move in, dynamic typing is generally
preferable, and not such a tiny issue
as they make the difference to be.
Still, they at least show more
awareness of the issues, in devoting 3
excellent pages of discussion about
it, pros and cons, than almost any
other book I've seen -- most books
have clearly delineated and preformed
precedence one way or the other, so
the discussion is rarely as balanced
as that;).
I'd start with recommending reading Steve Yegge's post on Is Weak Typing Strong Enough, then his post on Dynamic Languages Strike Back. That ought to at least get you started!
Let's do a few advantage/disadvantage comparisons:
Dynamic Languages:
Type decisions can be changed with minimal code impact.
Code can be written/compiled in isolation. I don't need an implementation or even formal description of the type to write code.
Have to rely on unit tests to find any type errors.
Language is more terse. Less typing.
Types can be modified at runtime.
Edit and continue is much easier to implement.
Static Languages:
Compiler tells of all type errors.
Editors can offer prompts like Intellisense much more richly.
More strict syntax which can be frustrating.
More typing is (usually) required.
Compiler can do better optimization if it knows the types ahead of time.
To complicate things a little more, consider that languages such as C# are going partially dynamic (in feel anyway) with the var construct or languages like Haskell that are statically typed but feel dynamic because of type inference.
Dynamic programming languages basically do things at runtime that other languages do at Compile time. This includes extension of the program, by adding new code, by extending objects and definitions, or by modifying the type system, all during program execution rather than compilation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming_language
Here are some common examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dynamic_programming_languages
And to answer your original question:
They're slow, You need to use a basic text editor to write them - no Intellisense or Code prompts, they tend to be a big pain in the ass to write and maintain. BUT the most famous one (javascript) runs on practically every browser in the world - that's a good thing I guess. Lets call it 'broad compatibility'. I think you could probably get a dynamic language interpretor for most operating systems, but you certainly couldn't get a compiler for non dynamic languages for most operating systems.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
It seems that everybody is jumping on the dynamic, non-compiled bandwagon lately. I've mostly only worked in compiled, static typed languages (C, Java, .Net). The experience I have with dynamic languages is stuff like ASP (Vb Script), JavaScript, and PHP. Using these technologies has left a bad taste in my mouth when thinking about dynamic languages. Things that usually would have been caught by the compiler such as misspelled variable names and assigning an value of the wrong type to a variable don't occur until runtime. And even then, you may not notice an error, as it just creates a new variable, and assigns some default value. I've also never seen intellisense work well in a dynamic language, since, well, variables don't have any explicit type.
What I want to know is, what people find so appealing about dynamic languages? What are the main advantages in terms of things that dynamic languages allow you to do that can't be done, or are difficult to do in compiled languages. It seems to me that we decided a long time ago, that things like uncompiled asp pages throwing runtime exceptions was a bad idea. Why is there is a resurgence of this type of code? And why does it seem to me at least, that Ruby on Rails doesn't really look like anything you couldn't have done with ASP 10 years ago?
I think the reason is that people are used to statically typed languages that have very limited and inexpressive type systems. These are languages like Java, C++, Pascal, etc. Instead of going in the direction of more expressive type systems and better type inference, (as in Haskell, for example, and even SQL to some extent), some people like to just keep all the "type" information in their head (and in their tests) and do away with static typechecking altogether.
What this buys you in the end is unclear. There are many misconceived notions about typechecking, the ones I most commonly come across are these two.
Fallacy: Dynamic languages are less verbose. The misconception is that type information equals type annotation. This is totally untrue. We all know that type annotation is annoying. The machine should be able to figure that stuff out. And in fact, it does in modern compilers. Here is a statically typed QuickSort in two lines of Haskell (from haskell.org):
qsort [] = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x] ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)
And here is a dynamically typed QuickSort in LISP (from swisspig.net):
(defun quicksort (lis) (if (null lis) nil
(let* ((x (car lis)) (r (cdr lis)) (fn (lambda (a) (< a x))))
(append (quicksort (remove-if-not fn r)) (list x)
(quicksort (remove-if fn r))))))
The Haskell example falsifies the hypothesis statically typed, therefore verbose. The LISP example falsifies the hypothesis verbose, therefore statically typed. There is no implication in either direction between typing and verbosity. You can safely put that out of your mind.
Fallacy: Statically typed languages have to be compiled, not interpreted. Again, not true. Many statically typed languages have interpreters. There's the Scala interpreter, The GHCi and Hugs interpreters for Haskell, and of course SQL has been both statically typed and interpreted for longer than I've been alive.
You know, maybe the dynamic crowd just wants freedom to not have to think as carefully about what they're doing. The software might not be correct or robust, but maybe it doesn't have to be.
Personally, I think that those who would give up type safety to purchase a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor type safety.
Don't forget that you need to write 10x code coverage in unit tests to replace what your compiler does :D
I've been there, done that with dynamic languages, and I see absolutely no advantage.
When reading other people's responses, it seems that there are more or less three arguments for dynamic languages:
1) The code is less verbose.
I don't find this valid. Some dynamic languages are less verbose than some static ones. But F# is statically typed, but the static typing there does not add much, if any, code. It is implicitly typed, though, but that is a different thing.
2) "My favorite dynamic language X has my favorite functional feature Y, so therefore dynamic is better". Don't mix up functional and dynamic (I can't understand why this has to be said).
3) In dynamic languages you can see your results immediately. News: You can do that with C# in Visual Studio (since 2005) too. Just set a breakpoint, run the program in the debugger and modify the program while debbuging. I do this all the time and it works perfectly.
Myself, I'm a strong advocate for static typing, for one primary reason: maintainability. I have a system with a couple 10k lines of JavaScript in it, and any refactoring I want to do will take like half a day since the (non-existent) compiler will not tell me what that variable renaming messed up. And that's code I wrote myself, IMO well structured, too. I wouldn't want the task of being put in charge of an equivalent dynamic system that someone else wrote.
I guess I will be massively downvoted for this, but I'll take the chance.
VBScript sucks, unless you're comparing it to another flavor of VB.
PHP is ok, so long as you keep in mind that it's an overgrown templating language.
Modern Javascript is great. Really. Tons of fun. Just stay away from any scripts tagged "DHTML".
I've never used a language that didn't allow runtime errors. IMHO, that's largely a red-herring: compilers don't catch all typos, nor do they validate intent. Explicit typing is great when you need explicit types, but most of the time, you don't. Search for the questions here on generics or the one about whether or not using unsigned types was a good choice for index variables - much of the time, this stuff just gets in the way, and gives folks knobs to twiddle when they have time on their hands.
But, i haven't really answered your question. Why are dynamic languages appealing? Because after a while, writing code gets dull and you just want to implement the algorithm. You've already sat and worked it all out in pen, diagrammed potential problem scenarios and proved them solvable, and the only thing left to do is code up the twenty lines of implementation... and two hundred lines of boilerplate to make it compile. Then you realize that the type system you work with doesn't reflect what you're actually doing, but someone else's ultra-abstract idea of what you might be doing, and you've long ago abandoned programming for a life of knicknack tweaking so obsessive-compulsive that it would shame even fictional detective Adrian Monk.
That's when you go get plastered start looking seriously at dynamic languages.
I am a full-time .Net programmer fully entrenched in the throes of statically-typed C#. However, I love modern JavaScript.
Generally speaking, I think dynamic languages allow you to express your intent more succinctly than statically typed languages as you spend less time and space defining what the building blocks are of what you are trying to express when in many cases they are self evident.
I think there are multiple classes of dynamic languages, too. I have no desire to go back to writing classic ASP pages in VBScript. To be useful, I think a dynamic language needs to support some sort of collection, list or associative construct at its core so that objects (or what pass for objects) can be expressed and allow you to build more complex constructs. (Maybe we should all just code in LISP ... it's a joke ...)
I think in .Net circles, dynamic languages get a bad rap because they are associated with VBScript and/or JavaScript. VBScript is just a recalled as a nightmare for many of the reasons Kibbee stated -- anybody remember enforcing type in VBScript using CLng to make sure you got enough bits for a 32-bit integer. Also, I think JavaScript is still viewed as the browser language for drop-down menus that is written a different way for all browsers. In that case, the issue is not language, but the various browser object models. What's interesting is that the more C# matures, the more dynamic it starts to look. I love Lambda expressions, anonymous objects and type inference. It feels more like JavaScript everyday.
Here is a statically typed QuickSort in two lines of Haskell (from haskell.org):
qsort [] = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x] ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)
And here is a dynamically typed QuickSort in LISP (from swisspig.net):
(defun quicksort (lis) (if (null lis) nil
(let* ((x (car lis)) (r (cdr lis)) (fn (lambda (a) (< a x))))
(append (quicksort (remove-if-not fn r)) (list x)
(quicksort (remove-if fn r))))))
I think you're biasing things with your choice of language here. Lisp is notoriously paren-heavy. A closer equivelent to Haskell would be Python.
if len(L) <= 1: return L
return qsort([lt for lt in L[1:] if lt < L[0]]) + [L[0]] + qsort([ge for ge in L[1:] if ge >= L[0]])
Python code from here
For me, the advantage of dynamic languages is how much more readable the code becomes due to less code and functional techniques like Ruby's block and Python's list comprehension.
But then I kind of miss the compile time checking (typo does happen) and IDE auto complete. Overall, the lesser amount of code and readability pays off for me.
Another advantage is the usually interpreted/non compiled nature of the language. Change some code and see the result immediately. It's really a time saver during development.
Last but not least, I like the fact that you can fire up a console and try out something you're not sure of, like a class or method that you've never used before and see how it behaves. There are many uses for the console and I'll just leave that for you to figure out.
Your arguments against dynamic languages are perfectly valid. However, consider the following:
Dynamic languages don't need to be compiled: just run them. You can even reload the files at run time without restarting the application in most cases.
Dynamic languages are generally less verbose and more readable: have you ever looked at a given algorithm or program implemented in a static language, then compared it to the Ruby or Python equivalent? In general, you're looking at a reduction in lines of code by a factor of 3. A lot of scaffolding code is unnecessary in dynamic languages, and that means the end result is more readable and more focused on the actual problem at hand.
Don't worry about typing issues: the general approach when programming in dynamic languages is not to worry about typing: most of the time, the right kind of argument will be passed to your methods. And once in a while, someone may use a different kind of argument that just happens to work as well. When things go wrong, your program may be stopped, but this rarely happens if you've done a few tests.
I too found it a bit scary to step away from the safe world of static typing at first, but for me the advantages by far outweigh the disadvantages, and I've never looked back.
I believe that the "new found love" for dynamically-typed languages have less to do with whether statically-typed languages are better or worst - in the absolute sense - than the rise in popularity of certain dynamic languages. Ruby on Rails was obviously a big phenomenon that cause the resurgence of dynamic languages. The thing that made rails so popular and created so many converts from the static camp was mainly: very terse and DRY code and configuration. This is especially true when compared to Java web frameworks which required mountains of XML configuration. Many Java programmers - smart ones too - converted over, and some even evangelized ruby and other dynamic languages. For me, three distinct features allow dynamic languages like Ruby or Python to be more terse:
Minimalist syntax - the big one is that type annotations are not required, but also the the language designer designed the language from the start to be terse
inline function syntax(or the lambda) - the ability to write inline functions and pass them around as variables makes many kinds of code more brief. In particular this is true for list/array operations. The roots of this ideas was obviously - LISP.
Metaprogramming - metaprogramming is a big part of what makes rails tick. It gave rise to a new way of refactoring code that allowed the client code of your library to be much more succinct. This also originate from LISP.
All three of these features are not exclusive to dynamic languages, but they certainly are not present in the popular static languages of today: Java and C#. You might argue C# has #2 in delegates, but I would argue that it's not widely used at all - such as with list operations.
As for more advanced static languages... Haskell is a wonderful language, it has #1 and #2, and although it doesn't have #3, it's type system is so flexible that you will probably not find the lack of meta to be limiting. I believe you can do metaprogramming in OCaml at compile time with a language extension. Scala is a very recent addition and is very promising. F# for the .NET camp. But, users of these languages are in the minority, and so they didn't really contribute to this change in the programming languages landscape. In fact, I very much believe the popularity of Ruby affected the popularity of languages like Haskell, OCaml, Scala, and F# in a positive way, in addition to the other dynamic languages.
Personally, I think it's just that most of the "dynamic" languages you have used just happen to be poor examples of languages in general.
I am way more productive in Python than in C or Java, and not just because you have to do the edit-compile-link-run dance. I'm getting more productive in Objective-C, but that's probably more due to the framework.
Needless to say, I am more productive in any of these languages than PHP. Hell, I'd rather code in Scheme or Prolog than PHP. (But lately I've actually been doing more Prolog than anything else, so take that with a grain of salt!)
My appreciation for dynamic languages is very much tied to how functional they are. Python's list comprehensions, Ruby's closures, and JavaScript's prototyped objects are all very appealing facets of those languages. All also feature first-class functions--something I can't see living without ever again.
I wouldn't categorize PHP and VB (script) in the same way. To me, those are mostly imperative languages with all of the dynamic-typing drawbacks that you suggest.
Sure, you don't get the same level of compile-time checks (since there ain't a compile time), but I would expect static syntax-checking tools to evolve over time to at least partially address that issue.
One of the advantages pointed out for dynamic languages is to just be able to change the code and continue running. No need to recompile. In VS.Net 2008, when debugging, you can actually change the code, and continue running, without a recompile. With advances in compilers and IDEs, is it possible that this and other advantages of using dynamic languages will go away.
Ah, I didn't see this topic when I posted similar question
Aside from good features the rest of the folks mentioned here about dynamic languages, I think everybody forget one, the most basic thing: metaprogramming.
Programming the program.
Its pretty hard to do in compiled languages, generally, take for example .Net. To make it work you have to make all kind of mambo jumbo and it usualy ends with code that runs around 100 times slower.
Most dynamic languages have a way to do metaprogramming and that is something that keeps me there - ability to create any kind of code in memory and perfectly integrate it into my applicaiton.
For instance to create calculator in Lua, all I have to do is:
print( loadstring( "return " .. io.read() )() )
Now, try to do that in .Net.
My main reason for liking dynamic (typed, since that seems to be the focus of the thread) languages is that the ones I've used (in a work environment) are far superior to the non-dynamic languages I've used. C, C++, Java, etc... they're all horrible languages for getting actual work done in. I'd love to see an implicitly typed language that's as natural to program in as many of the dynamically typed ones.
That being said, there's certain constructs that are just amazing in dynamically typed languages. For example, in Tcl
lindex $mylist end-2
The fact that you pass in "end-2" to indicate the index you want is incredibly concise and obvious to the reader. I have yet to see a statically typed language that accomplishes such.
I think this kind of argument is a bit stupid: "Things that usually would have been caught by the compiler such as misspelled variable names and assigning an value of the wrong type to a variable don't occur until runtime" yes thats right as a PHP developer I don't see things like mistyped variables until runtime, BUT runtime is step 2 for me, in C++ (Which is the only compiled language I have any experience) it is step 3, after linking, and compiling.
Not to mention that it takes all of a few seconds after I hit save to when my code is ready to run, unlike in compiled languages where it can take literally hours. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit angry, but I'm kind of tired of people treating me as a second rate programmer because I don't have to compile my code.
The argument is more complex than this (read Yegge's article "Is Weak Typing Strong Enough" for an interesting overview).
Dynamic languages don't necessarily lack error checking either - C#'s type inference is possibly one example. In the same way, C and C++ have terrible compile checks and they are statically typed.
The main advantages of dynamic languages are a) capability (which doesn't necessarily have to be used all the time) and b) Boyd's Law of Iteration.
The latter reason is massive.
Although I'm not a big fan of Ruby yet, I find dynamic languages to be really wonderful and powerful tools.
The idea that there is no type checking and variable declaration is not too big an issue really. Admittedly, you can't catch these errors until run time, but for experienced developers this is not really an issue, and when you do make mistakes, they're usually easily fixed.
It also forces novices to read what they're writing more carefully. I know learning PHP taught me to be more attentive to what I was actually typing, which has improved my programming even in compiled languages.
Good IDEs will give enough intellisense for you to know whether a variable has been "declared" and they also try to do some type inference for you so that you can tell what a variable is.
The power of what can be done with dynamic languages is really what makes them so much fun to work with in my opinion. Sure, you could do the same things in a compiled language, but it would take more code. Languages like Python and PHP let you develop in less time and get a functional codebase faster most of the time.
And for the record, I'm a full-time .NET developer, and I love compiled languages. I only use dynamic languages in my free time to learn more about them and better myself as a developer..
I think that we need the different types of languages depending on what we are trying to achieve, or solve with them. If we want an application that creates, retrieves, updates and deletes records from the database over the internet, we are better off doing it with one line of ROR code (using the scaffold) than writing it from scratch in a statically typed language. Using dynamic languages frees up the minds from wondering about
which variable has which type
how to grow a string dynamically as needs be
how to write code so that if i change type of one variable, i dont have to rewrite all the function that interact with it
to problems that are closer to business needs like
data is saving/updating etc in the database, how do i use it to drive traffic to my site
Anyway, one advantage of loosely typed languages is that we dont really care what type it is, if it behaves like what it is supposed to. That is the reason we have duck-typing in dynamically typed languages. it is a great feature and i can use the same variable names to store different types of data as the need arises. also, statically typed languages force you to think like a machine (how does the compiler interact with your code, etc etc) whereas dynamically typed languages, especially ruby/ror, force the machine to think like a human.
These are some of the arguments i use to justify my job and experience in dynamic languages!
I think both styles have their strengths. This either/or thinking is kind of crippling to our community in my opinion. I've worked in architectures that were statically-typed from top to bottom and it was fine. My favorite architecture is for dynamically-typed at the UI level and statically-typed at the functional level. This also encourages a language barrier that enforces the separation of UI and function.
To be a cynic, it may be simply that dynamic languages allow the developer to be lazier and to get things done knowing less about the fundamentals of computing. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to the reader :)
FWIW, Compiling on most applications shouldn't take hours. I have worked with applications that are between 200-500k lines that take minutes to compile. Certainly not hours.
I prefer compiled languages myself. I feel as though the debugging tools (in my experience, which might not be true for everything) are better and the IDE tools are better.
I like being able to attach my Visual Studio to a running process. Can other IDEs do that? Maybe, but I don't know about them. I have been doing some PHP development work lately and to be honest it isn't all that bad. However, I much prefer C# and the VS IDE. I feel like I work faster and debug problems faster.
So maybe it is more a toolset thing for me than the dynamic/static language issue?
One last comment... if you are developing with a local server saving is faster than compiling, but often times I don't have access to everything on my local machine. Databases and fileshares live elsewhere. It is easier to FTP to the web server and then run my PHP code only to find the error and have to fix and re-ftp.
Productivity in a certain context. But that is just one environment I know, compared to some others I know or have seen used.
Smalltalk on Squeak/Pharo with Seaside is a much more effective and efficient web platform than ASP.Net(/MVC), RoR or Wicket, for complex applications. Until you need to interface with something that has libraries in one of those but not smalltalk.
Misspelled variable names are red in the IDE, IntelliSense works but is not as specific. Run-time errors on webpages are not an issue but a feature, one click to bring up the debugger, one click to my IDE, fix the bug in the debugger, save, continue. For simple bugs, the round-trip time for this cycle is less than 20 seconds.
Dynamic Languages Strike Back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz-Bb-D6teE
A talk discussing Dynamic Languages, what some of the positives are, and how many of the negatives aren't really true.
Because I consider stupid having to declare the type of the box.
The type stays with the entity, not with the container. Static typing had a sense when the type of the box had a direct consequence on how the bits in memory were interpreted.
If you take a look at the design patterns in the GoF, you will realize that a good part of them are there just to fight with the static nature of the language, and they have no reason whatsoever to exist in a dynamic language.
Also, I'm tired of having to write stuff like MyFancyObjectInterface f = new MyFancyObject(). DRY principle anyone ?
Put yourself in the place of a brand new programmer selecting a language to start out with, who doesn't care about dynamic versus staic versus lambdas versus this versus that etc.; which language would YOU choose?
C#
using System;
class MyProgram
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
foreach (string s in args)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
}
}
Lua:
function printStuff(args)
for key,value in pairs(args) do
print value .. " "
end
end
strings = {
"hello",
"world",
"from lua"
}
printStuff(strings)
This all comes down to partially what's appropriate for the particular goals and what's a common personal preference. (E.G. Is this going to be a huge code base maintained by more people than can conduct a reasonable meeting together? You want type checking.)
The personal part is about trading off some checks and other steps for development and testing speed (while likely giving up some cpu performance). There's some people for which this is liberating and a performance boost, and there's some for which this is quite the opposite, and yes it does sort of depend on the particular flavor of your language too. I mean no one here is saying Java rocks for speedy, terse development, or that PHP is a solid language where you'll rarely make a hard to spot typo.
I have love for both static and dynamic languages. Every project that I've been involved in since about 2002 has been a C/C++ application with an embedded Python interpret. This gives me the best of both worlds:
The components and frameworks that make up the application are, for a given release of an application, immutable. They must also be very stable, and hence, well tested. A Statically typed language is the right choice for building these parts.
The wiring up of components, loading of component DLLs, artwork, most of the GUI, etc... can vary greatly (say, to customise the application for a client) with no need to change any framework or components code. A dynamic language is perfect for this.
I find that the mix of a statically typed language to build the system and a dynamically type language to configure it gives me flexibility, stability and productivity.
To answer the question of "What's with the love of dynamic languages?" For me it's the ability to completely re-wire a system at runtime in any way imaginable. I see the scripting language as "running the show", therefore the executing application may do anything you desire.
I don't have much experience with dynamic languages in general, but the one dynamic language I do know, JavaScript(aka ECMAScript), I absolutely love.
Well, wait, what's the discussion here? Dynamic compilation? Or dynamic typing? JavaScript covers both bases so I guess I'll talk about both:
Dynamic compilation:
To begin, dynamic languages are compiled, the compilation is simply put off until later. And Java and .NET really are compiled twice. Once to their respective intermediate languages, and again, dynamically, to machine code.
But when compilation is put off you can see results faster. That's one advantage. I do enjoy simply saving the file and seeing my program in action fairly quick.
Another advantage is that you can write and compile code at runtime. Whether this is possible in statically compiled code, I don't know. I imagine it must be, since whatever compiles JavaScript is ultimately machine code and statically compiled. But in a dynamic language this is a trivial thing to do. Code can write and run itself. (And I'm pretty sure .NET can do this, but the CIL that .NET compiles to is dynamically compiled on the fly anyways, and it's not so trivial in C#)
Dynamic typing:
I think dynamic typing is more expressive than static typing. Note that I'm using the term expressive informally to say that dynamic typing can say more with less. Here's some JavaScript code:
var Person = {};
Do you know what Person is now? It's a generic dictionary. I can do this:
Person["First_Name"] = "John";
Person["Last_Name"] = "Smith";
But it's also an object. I could refer to any of those "keys" like this:
Person.First_Name
And add any methods I deem necessary:
Person.changeFirstName = function(newName) {
this.First_Name = newName;
};
Sure, there might be problems if newName isn't a string. It won't be caught right away, if ever, but you can check yourself. It's a matter of trading expressive power and flexibility for safety. I don't mind adding code to check types, etc, myself, and I've yet to run into a type bug that gave me much grief (and I know that isn't saying much. It could be a matter of time :) ). I very much enjoy, however, that ability to adapt on the fly.
Nice blog post on the same topic: Python Makes Me Nervous
Method signatures are virtually
useless in Python. In Java, static
typing makes the method signature into
a recipe: it's all the shit you need
to make this method work. Not so in
Python. Here, a method signature will
only tell you one thing: how many
arguments you need to make it work.
Sometimes, it won't even do that, if
you start fucking around with
**kwargs.
Because it's fun fun fun. It's fun to not worry about memory allocation, for one. It's fun not waiting for compilation. etc etc etc
Weakly typed languages allow flexibility in how you manage your data.
I used VHDL last spring for several classes, and I like their method of representing bits/bytes, and how the compiler catches errors if you try to assign a 6-bit bus to a 9-bit bus. I tried to recreate it in C++, and I'm having a fair struggle to neatly get the typing to work smoothly with existing types. Steve Yegge does a very nice job of describing the issues involved with strong type systems, I think.
Regarding verbosity: I find Java and C# to be quite verbose in the large(let's not cherry-pick small algorithms to "prove" a point). And, yes, I've written in both. C++ struggles in the same area as well; VHDL succumbs here.
Parsimony appears to be a virtue of the dynamic languages in general(I present Perl and F# as examples).