Does anybody know of any research or benchmarks of how long it takes to develop the same application in a variety of languages? Really I'm looking for Java vs. C++ but any comparisons would be useful. I have the feeling there is a section in Code Complete about this but my copy is at work.
Edit:
There are a lot of interesting answers to this question but it seems like there is a lack of really good research. I have made a proposal over at meta about this problem.
Pratt & Whitney, purveyors of jet engines for civilian and military applications, did a study on this many years ago, without actually intending to do the study.
They went on the same metrics kick everyone else went on in the 1990s. They collected a bunch of data about their jet engine controller projects, including timecard data. They crunched it. The poor sap who got to crunch the data noticed something in the results: the military projects uniformly had twice the programmer productivity and one/fourth the defect density as the civilian projects.
This, by itself, is significant. It means you only need half as many programmers, and you aren't going to spend quite as much time fixing bugs. What is even more important is that this was an apples-to-apples comparison. A jet engine controller is a jet engine controller.
He then went looking for candidate explanations. All of the usual candidates: individual experience, team size, toolsets, software processes, requirements stability, everything, were trotted out, and they were ruled out when it was seen that the story on those items was uniformly the same on both sides of the aisle. At the end of the day, only one statistically significant difference showed up.
The civilian projects were written in every language you could think of. The military projects were all written in Ada.
IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, against every other comer, for jet engine controllers at Pratt & Whitney, using Ada gave double the productivity and one/fourth the defect density.
I know what the flying code monkeys are going to say. "You can do good work in any language." In theory, that's true. In practice, however, it appears that, at least at Pratt & Whitney, language made a difference.
Last I heard about this, Pratt & Whitney upper management decreed that ALL jet engine controller projects would be done in Ada.
No, I don't have a citation. No paper was ever written. My source on this story was the poor sap who crunched the numbers. Here's a similar study from 1995:
http://archive.adaic.com/intro/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html
This, incidentally, was BEFORE Boeing did the 777, and BEFORE the 777 brake subcontractor story happened. But that's another story.
One of the few funded scientific studies that I'm aware of on cross-language productivity, from the early 90s, funded by ARPA and the ONR,
Haskell vs. Ada Vs. C++ vs Awk vs ... An Experiment in Software Prototyping Productivity, Hudak & Jones, 1994.
We describe the results of an
experiment in which several
conventional programming languages,
together with the functional language
Haskell, were used to prototype a
Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC)
requirement for a Geometric Region
Server. The resulting programs and
development metrics were reviewed by a
committee chosen by the Navy. The
results indicate that the Haskell
prototype took significantly less time
to develop and was considerably more
concise and easier to understand than
the..
This article(a pdf) has some benchmarks (note that it's from 2000) between C, C++, Perl, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx and Tcl.
Some common wisdom I believe holds true (also somewhere within the article):
The number of lines written per hour is independent of the language
Opinion: more important is what is faster for a given developer, for example yourself. What you are used to, will usually be faster. If you are used to 20 years of C++ pitfalls and never skip an uninitialized variable, that will be faster than Java for anybody.
If you remember all parameters of CreateWindowEx() by heart, it will be faster than MFC or winforms.
A couple of anecdotal data points:
On Project Euler, which invites programming solutions to mathematical problems,
the shortest solutions are almost invariably written in J or K, a relative of APL; there are occasionally MatLab solutions in the same range. It can be argued, though, that these languages specialized in math.
runners up were Ruby solutions. A lot of algorithm can be wrapped in very little code, and it's much more legible than J / K.
Python and Haskell solutions also did very well, LOC-wise.
The question asked about "fastest development," not "shortest code." But it's conceivable that shorter solutions are faster to come up with - certainly for slow typists!
There's an annual competition among roboticists. Contestants are given some specs for some hardware, a practical problem to solve in software, and limited time to do so. Again very domain specific, of course. Programmers have their choice of tools, including language of course. Every year, the winning team (often a single person) used Forth.
This admittedly limited sample suggests that "development speed" and "effect of language on speed" is often very dependent on the problem domain.
See also
Are there statistical studies that indicates that Python is "more productive"?
for some discussions about this kind of question.
It would make more sense to benchmark the programmers, not the languages. The time to write a program in any mainstream language depends more on the ability of the programmer in that language than on qualities of that specific language.
I think most benchmarks and statements on this topic will mean very little.
Benchmarks can always be gamed; see the history of "Pet Store".
A language that's good at solving one kind of problem might not apply as well to another.
What matters most is the skill of your team, its knowledge of a particular technology, and how well you know the domain you're trying to solve.
UPDATE: Control software for jet engines and helicopters is a very specialized subset of computing problems. It's characterized by very rigorous, complete, detailed specs and QA that means the multi-million dollar aircraft cannot crash.
I can second the (very good) citation by John Strohm of Pratt & Whitney control software written in Ada. The control software for Kaman helicopters sold to Australia was also written in Ada.
But this does not lead to the conclusion that if you decided to write your next web site in Ada that you'd have higher productivity and fewer defects than you would if you chose C# or Java or Python or Ruby. All languages are not equally good in all problem domains.
Language/framework comparison for web applications
The Plat_Forms project provides some information of this type for web applications.
There are three studies with different tasks (done in 2007, 2011, 2012), all of the following format: Several teams of three professional developers implemented the same application under controlled conditions within two days.
It covers Java, Perl, PHP, and Ruby and has multiple teams for each language.
The evaluation reports much more than only development time.
Findings of iteration one for instance included
that experience with the language and framework appeared to be more relevant than what that framework was.
that Java tended to induce teams to make laborious constructions while Perl induced them to make pragmatic (and quite handy) constructions.
Findings of iteration two included
that Ruby on Rails was more productive in this type of project (which due to its duration was more rapid prototyping than full-blown development of a mature application)
and that the one exception to the above rule was the one team using Symfony, a PHP framework that has similar concepts to Ruby on Rails (but still the very different base language underneath it).
Look under http://www.plat-forms.org or search the web for "Plat_Forms".
There is plenty more detail in the reports, in particular the thick techreport on iteration 1.
Most programs have to interface with some other framework. It tends to be a good idea to pick the language that has libraries specifically for what you are trying to do. For instance are you trying to build a distributed redundant messaging system? If so I would use Erlang. Are you trying to make a quick and dirty data driven website, use Ruby and Rails. You get the idea. Real time DirectX where performance is key, C++/C/Asm.
If you are writing something that is algorithm based I would look to a functional language like Haskell, although it has a very high learning curve.
This question is a little old fashioned. Focusing on development time solely based on the choice of language is of limited value. There are so many other factors that have equal or more impact than the language itself:
The libraries or frameworks available / used.
The level of quality required (ie. defect count).
The type of application (eg. GUI, server, driver etc...)
The level of maintainability required.
Developer experience in the language.
The platform or OS the application is built on.
As an example, many would say Java is the better choice over C++ to build enterprise (line of business) applications. This is not normally because of the language itself, but instead it is perceived that Java has better (or more mature) web server and database frameworks available to it. This may or may not be true, but that is beside the point.
You may even find that the building an application using the same language on different operating systems or platforms gives greatly differing development time. For example using C++ on Linux to build a GUI application may take longer than a Windows based GUI application using C++ because of less extensive and mature GUI libraries avaialble on Linux (once again this is debatable).
According to Norvig, Lutz Prechelt published just such an article in the October 1999 CACM: "Comparing Java vs. C/C++ Efficiency Issues to Interpersonal Issues".
Norvig includes a link to that article. Unfortunately, the ACM, despite having a bitmap graphic proclaiming their goal of "Advancing Computing as a Science & Profession", couldn't figure out how to maintain stable links on their webpage, so it's just a 404 now. Perhaps your local library could help you out.
That Ada story might be an embellished version of this: http://www.adaic.com/whyada/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html
Erlang vs C++/Corba
"... As the Erlang DCC is less than a quarter of the size of a similar C++/CORBA implementation, the product development in Erlang should be fast, and the code maintainable. We conclude that Erlang and associated libraries are suitable for the rapid development of maintainable and highly reliable distributed products."
Paper here
There's a reason why there are no real comparisons in that aspect, except for anecdotal evidence (which can be found in favor of almost any language).
Actually writing code takes relatively small portion of developer's time. Even if language lets you cut coding time in half, it will be barely noticeable by the time project ends. Design, structure of program, development process are all much more important, and then there are libraries, tools and experience with them.
Some languages are better suited for certain development processes than the others, so if you've settled on design and process you can decide which language will be more efficient - but not before.
(didn't notice there's a similar answer already, so feel free to ignore this)
Related
I am working on a new language, targeted for web development, embeding into applications, distributed applications, high-reliability software (but this is for distant future).
Also, it's target to reduce development expenses in long term - more time to write safer code and less support later. And finally, it enforces many things that real teams have to enforce - like one crossplatform IDE, one codestyle, one web framework.
In short, the key syntax/language features are:
Open source, non-restrictive licensing. Surely crossplatform.
Tastes like C++ but simpler, Pythonic syntax with strict & static type checking. Easier to learn, no multiple inheritance and other things which nobody know anyway :-)
LLVM bytecode/compilation backend gives near-C speed.
Is has both garbage collection & explicit object destruction.
Real OS threads, native support of multicore computers. Multithreading is part of language, not a library.
Types have the same width on any platform. int(32), long(64) e.t.c
Built in post and preconditions, asserts, tiny unit tests. You write a method - you can write all these things in 1 place, so you have related things in one place. If you worry that your class sourcecode will be bloated with this - it's IDEs work to hide what you don't need now.
Java-like exception handling (i.e. you have to handle all exceptions)
I guess I'll leave web & cluster features for now...
What you think? Are there any existing similar languages which I missed?
To summarize: You language has no real selling points. It just does what a dozen other languages already did, with syntax and semantics just slightly off, depending on where the programmer comes from. This may be a good thing, as it makes the language easier to adapt, but you also have to convince people to trouble to switch. All this stuff has to be built and debugged and documented again, tools have to be programmed, people have to learn it and convince their pointy-haired bosses to use it, etc. "So it's language X with a few features from Y and nicer syntax? But it won't make my application's code 15% shorter and cleaner, it won't free me from boilerplate X, etc - and it won't work with my IDE." The last one is important. Tools matter. If there are no good tools for a language, few people will shy away, rightfully so.
And finally, it enforces many things that real teams have to enforce - like one crossplatform IDE, one codestyle, one web framework.
Sounds like a downside! How does the language "enforce one X"? How do you convince programmers this coding style is the one true style? Why shouldn't somebody go and replace the dog slow, hardly maintained, severly limited IDE you "enforce" with something better? How could one web framework possibly fit all applications? Programmers rarely like to be forced into X, and they are sometimes right.
Also, you language will have to talk to others. So you have ready-made standard solutions for multithreading and web development in mind? Maybe you should start with a FFI instead. Python can use extensions written in C or C++, use dynamic libraries through ctypes, and with Cython it's amazingly simple to wrap any given C library with a Python interface. Do you have any idea how many important libraries are written in C? Unless your language can use these, people can hardly get (real-world) stuff done with it. Just think of GUI. Most mayor GUI toolkits are C or C++. And Java has hundreds of libraries (the other JVM languages profit much from Java interop) for many many purposes.
Finally, on performance: LLVM can give you native code generation, which is a huge plus (performance-wise, but also because the result is standalone), but the LLVM optimizers are limited, too. Don't expect it to beat C. Especially not hand-tuned C compiled via icc on Intel CPUs ;)
"Are there any existing similar
languages which I missed?"
D? Compared to your features:
The compiler has a dual license - GPL and Artistic
See example code here.
LDC targets LLVM. Support for D version 2 is under development.
Built-in garbage collection or explicit memory management.
core.thread
Types
Unit tests / Pre and Post Contracts
try/catch/finally exception handling plus scope guarantees
Responding to a few of your points individually (I've omitted what I consider either unimportant or good):
targeted for web development
Most people use php. Not because it's the best language available, that's for sure.
embeding into applications
Lua.
distributed applications, high-reliability software (but this is for distant future).
Have you carefully studied Erlang, both its design and its reference implementation?
it enforces many things that real teams have to enforce - like one crossplatform IDE, one codestyle, one web framework.
If your language becomes successful, people will make other IDEs, other code styles, other web frameworks.
Multithreading is part of language, not a library.
Really good languages for multithreading forbid side effects inside threads. Yes, in practice that pretty much means Erlang only.
Types have the same width on any platform. int(32), long(64) e.t.c
Sigh... There's only one reasonable width for integers outside of machine-level languages like C: infinite.
Designing your own language will undoubtedly teach you someting. But designing a good language is like designing a good cryptosystem: lots of amateurs try, but it takes an expert to do it well.
I suggest you read some of Norman Ramsey's answers here on programming language design, starting with this thread.
Given your interest in distributed applications, knowing Erlang is a must. As for sequential programming, the minimum is one imperative language and one functional language (ideally both Lisp/Scheme and Haskell, but F# is a good start). I also recommend knowing at least one high-level language that doesn't have objects, just so you understand that not having objects can often make the programmer's life easier (because objects are complex).
As for what could drive other people to learn your language... Good tools/libraries/frameworks can't hurt (FORTRAN, php), and a big company setting the example can't hurt (Java, C#). Good design doesn't seem to be much of a factor (a ha-ha-only-serious joke has it that what makes a language successful is using {braces} to delimit blocks: C, C++, Java, C#, php)...
What you've given us is a list of features, with no coherent philosophy, or explanation as to how they will work together. None of the features are unique. At best, you're offering incremental improvements over what's already there. I'd expect there's already languages kicking around with what you've said, it's just that they're still fairly obscure, because they didn't make it.
Languages have inertia. People have to learn new languages, and sometimes new tools. They need incentive to do so, and 20% improvement in a few features doesn't cut it.
What you need, at a minimum, is a killer app and a form of elevator pitch. (The "elevator pitch" is what you tell the higher-ups about your project when you're in the elevator with them, in current US business parlance.) You need to have your language be obviously worth learning for some purpose, and you need to be able to tell people why it's worth learning before they think "just another language by somebody who wanted to write a language" and go away.
You need to form a language community. That community needs to have some localization at first: people who work in X big company, people who want to do Y, whatever. Decide on what that community is likely to be, and come up with one big reason to switch and some reasons to believe that your language can deliver what it promises.
No.
Every buzzword you have included in your feature list is an enormous amount of work to be spec'd, implemented, documented, and tested.
How many people will be actively developing the language? I guess the web is full of failed programming language projects. (Same is true for non-mainstream OSes)
Have a look at what .Net/Visual Studio or Java/Eclipse have accomplished. That's 1000s of years of specification, development, tests, documentation, feedback, bug fixes, service packs.
During my last job I heard about somebody who wrote his own programming framework, because it was "better". The resulting program code (both in the framework and in the applications) is certainly unmaintainable once the original programmer quits, or is "hit by a bus", as the saying goes.
As the list sounds like Java++ or Mono++, you'd probably be more successful in engaging in an existing project, even if it won't have your name tag on it.
Perhaps you missed one key term. Performance.
In any case, unless this new language has some really out-of-this-world features(ex: 100% increase in performance over other web development languages), I think it will be yet another fish in the pond.
Currently I'm responsible for maintaining a framework developed/owned by my company. It's a nightmare. Unless there is a mainstream community, working on this full time, it's really an elephant. I do not appreciate my company's decision to develop its own framework(because it's supposed to be "faster") day 'n night.
The language tastes good in my opinion, I don't want use java for a simple website but I would like to have types and things like that. ASP .NET is a problem because of licensing and I can't afford those licenses for a single website... Also features looks good
Remember a lot of operator overloading: I think is the biggest thing that PHP is actually missing. It allows classes to behave much more like basic types :)
When you have something to test I'll love to help you with it! Thanks
Well, if you have to reinvent the wheel, you can go for it :)
I am not going to give you any examples of languages or language features, but I will give you one advice instead:
Supporting framework is what is the most important thing. People will tend to love it or hate it, depending on how easy is to write good code that get job done. Therefore, please do usability test before releasing it. I mean ask several people how they will do certain task and create API accordingly. Then test beta API on other coders and listen carefully to their comments.
Regards and good luck :)
There's always space for another programming language. Apart from getting the design right, I think the biggest problem is coming across as just another wannabe language. So you may want to look at your marketing, you need a big sponsor who can integrate your language into their products, or you need to generate a buzz around it, easiest way is astroturfing. Good luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages
NB the names G and G++ aren't taken. Oh and watch out for the patent trolls.
Edit
Oops G / G++ are taken... still there are plenty more letters left.
This sounds more like a "systems" language rather than a "web development language". The major languages in this category (other than C++/C) are D and Go.
My advice to you would be to not start from scratch but examine the possibility of creating tools or libraries for those languages, and seeing just how far you can push them.
Using the right language for the job is the key - this is the comment I read in SO and I also belive thats the right thing to do. Because of this we ended up using different languages for different parts of the project - like perl, VBA(Excel Macros), C# etc. We have three to four languages currently in use inside the project. Using the right language for the job has made it immensly more easy to do automate a job, but of late people are complaining that any new person who has to take over the project will have to learn so many different languages to get started. Also it is difficult to find such kind of person. Please note that this is a one to two person working on the project maximum at a given point of time. I would like to know if the method we are following is right or should we converge to single language and try to use it across all the job even though another language might be better suited for it. Your experenece related to this would also help.
Languages used and their purpose:
Perl - Processing large text file(log files)
C# with Silverlight for web based reporting.
LabVIEW for automation
Excel macros for processing data in excel sheets, generating graphs and exporting to powerpoint.
I'd say you are doing it right. Almost all the projects I've ever worked on have used multiple languages, without any problems. I think you may be overestimating the difficulty people have picking up new languages, particularly if they all use the same paradigm. If your project were using Haskell, Smalltalk, C++ and assembler, you might have difficulties, I must admit :-)
Using a variety languages vs maintainability is simply another design decision with cost-vs-benefits trade-offs that, like any design decision, need to considered carefully. While I like using the "absolute best" tool for the task (whatever "absolute best" means), I wouldn't necessarily use it without considering other factors such as:
do we have sufficient skill and experience to implement successfully
will we be able to find the necessary resources to maintain it
do we already use the language/tech in our system
does the increase in complexity to the overall system (e.g. integration issues, the impact on build automation) outweigh the benefits of using the "absolute best" language
is there another language that we already use and have experience in that is usable in lieu of the "absolute best" language
I worked a system with around a dozen engineers that used C++, Java, SQL, TCL, C, shell scripts, and just a touch of Perl. I was proud that we used the "best language" where they made sense, but, in one case, using the "best language" (TCL) was a mistake - not because it was TCL - but rather because we failed to observe the full costs-vs-benefits of the choice:*
we had only 1 engineer deeply familiar with TCL - the original engineer who refused to use anything but TCL for a particular target component - and then that engineer left the project
this target component was the only part of the system to use TCL and it was small relative to the other components in the system
the component could have been also implemented in another language we already used that we had plenty of experience in (C or C++) with some extra effort
the component appeared deceptively simple, but in reality had subtle corner cases that bit us in production (not something we could have known then, but always something to consider as a possibility later)
we had to implement special changes to the nightly build because the TCL compiler (yes, we compiled the TCL code into an executable) wouldn't work unless it could first throw its logo up on the screen - a screen which wasn't available during a cron-initiated automated nightly build. (We resorted to using xvfb to satisfy it.)
when bugs turned up, we had difficult time finding engineers who wanted to work on it
when problems with this component cropped up only after sustained load in the field, we lacked the experience and deep understanding of the TCL execution engine to easily debug it in the field
finally, the maintenance and sustainment team, which is a much smaller team with fewer resources than the main development team, had one more language that they needed training and experience in just to support this relatively small component
Although there were a number of things we could have done to head-off some of the issues we hit down the road (e.g. put more emphasis on getting TCL experience earlier, running better tests to detect the issues earlier, etc), my point is that the overall cost-vs-benefit didn't justify using TCL to code that single component. Again, it was not a mistake to use TCL because it was TCL (TCL is a fine language), but rather it was a mistake because we failed to give full consideration to the cost-vs-benefits.
As a Software Engineer it's your job to learn new languages if you need to. I would say you should go with the right tool for the job.
It's like sweeping the floor with an octopus. Yeah, it gets the job done... kind of... but it's probably not the best tool for the job. You're better off using a mop.
Another option is to create positions geared towards working in specific languages. So you can have a C# developer, a Perl developer, and a VBA developer who will only work with that language. It's a bit more overhead, but it is a workable solution.
Any modern software project of any scope -- even if it's a one-person job -- requires more than one language. For instance, a web project usually requires Javascript, a backend language, and a DB query language (though any of these might be created by the backend language). That said, there's a threshold that is easily reached, and then it would be very hard to find new developers to take over projects. What's the limit? Three languages? Four? Let's say: five is too many, but one would be too few for any reasonably complex project.
Using the right language for the right job is definitely appropriate - I am mainly a web programmer, and I need to know server-side programming (Rails, PHP + others), SQL, Javascript, jQuery, HTML & CSS (not programming languages strictly, but complex things I need to know) - it would be impossible for me to do all of that in a single language or technology.
If you have a team of smart developers, picking up new languages will not be a problem for them. In fact they probably will be eager to do so. Just make sure they are given adequate time (and mentoring) to learn the new language.
Sure, there will be a learning curve to implementing production code if there is a new language to learn, but you will have a stronger team member for it.
If you have developers in your teams who strongly resist learning new languages, unless there is a very good reason (e.g they are justifiably adamant that they are being asked to used a different language when it is not appropriate to do so) - then they are not the sort of developers I'd want in my teams.
And don't bother trying to hire people who know all the languages you use. Hire smart programmers (who probably know at least one language you use) - they should pick up the other languages just fine.
I would be of the opinion, that if I a programmer on my team wanted to introduce a second (or third) language into a project, that there better be VERY VERY good reason to do so; as a project manager I would need to be convinced that the cost of doing so, more than offset the problems. And it would take a lot of convincing.
Splitting up project into multiple languages makes it very expensive to hire the right person(s) to take over that project when it needs maintenance. For small and medium shops it could be a huge obstacle.
Edit: I am not talking about using javascript and c# on the same project, I am talking about using C# for most of the code, F# for a few parts and then VB or C++ for others - there would need to be a compelling reason.
KISS: 'Keep it simple stupid' is a good axiom to follow in most cases.
EDIT: I am not completely opposed to adding languages, but the burden of proof is on the person to who wants to do it. KISS (to me) applies to not only getting the project/product done and shipped, but also must take into account the lifetime maint. and support requirements. Lots of languages come and go, and programmers are attracted to new languages like a moth to a light. Most projects I have worked on, I still oversee and/or support 5 or 10 years later - last thing I want to see is some long forgotten and/or orphaned language responsible for some key part of an application I need to support.
My experience using C++ and Lua was that I wrote more glue than actual operational code and for dubious benefit.
I'd start by saying the issue is whether you are using the right paradigm for the job?
Suppose you know how to do object oriented programming in C#. I don't think the leap to Java is all that great . Although you'd have to familiarize yourself with libraries and syntax, the idea is pretty similar.
If you have procedural parts to your project, such as parsing files and various data transformations, your Perl/Excel Macros seem pretty similar.
But to address your issues, I'd say above all, you'll need clarity in code. Since your staff are using several languages, they won't be familiar with all languages to an equal degree. So make sure of this:
1) Syntactic sugar is explained in comments. Sugars are pretty language specific and may not be obvious to a new reader. For instance, in VBA I seem to remember there are default properties, so that TextBox1 = "Hello" is what you'd write instead of TextBox1.Text = "Hello". This can be confusing. Also, things like LINQ statements can have un-obvious meanings. So make sure people have comments to read.
2) Where two components from different languages have to work together, make excruciatingly specific details about how that happens. For instance, I once had to write a C component to be called from Excel VBA. There's quote a few steps and potential errors in doing this, especially as far as compiler flags. Make sure both sides know how their side of the interaction occurs.
Finally, as far as hiring people goes, I think you have to find people who aren't married to a specific language. To put it vaguely, hire an intelligent person who sees business issues, not code. He'll learn the lingo soon enough.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm very curious about old programming languages, especially COBOL, and as Wikipedia couldn't really tell me much about this topic, I decided to ask it here:
Was COBOL the first programming language really being used in financial, stock and banking systems?
Where exactly was COBOL used?
Was it used more frequently than Fortran or BASIC, for example?
I don't know if you lived at that time, but how did people react to the rising COBOL? Did they expect it to be the future?
When has COBOL actually stopped being used to create new, big systems?
Are you sure that there are still important legacy apps written in COBOL out there? I can't believe that somehow.
Previous SO questions have gone a long way toward answering your questions. Please review:
What are Fortran and COBOL used for today
Why is COBOL still a preferred language in the business world
Reasons to start a new project in COBOL
What makes COBOL such a hated language
Was COBOL the first programming language used in financial, stock and banking systems
Well known languages that co-existed with early COBOL are
Fortran and Lisp. These languages were not much used much outside
of research and university facilities.
The landscape was highly fragmented within the world of business computing.
A number of proprietary low-to-medium level languages existed but generally
only ran on one vendors machine.
A few examples were: FLO-MATIC,
AIMACO and COMTRAN, all of
which heavily influenced the development of COBOL.
From this chaos emerged a strong desire to have a machine independent and common language for
developing business applications.
According to Jean E. Sammet (The Early History of COBOL), the
US Department of Defense spearheaded and funded the early development of COBOL.
Where is COBOL used
Largely in financial (banks/government) and insurance industries. Outside of these sectors, COBOL is pretty
much unheard of.
Is it used more frequently than Fortran or BASIC
I believe Fortran actually pre-dates COBOL by a little bit. Fortran is
primarily suited for high-performance numerical applications (astronomy, physics
and the like). COBOL is primarily suited for financial and record keeping
applications - the stuff of business and commerce (hence
the name: COmmon Business Oriented Language).
The two were never in "competition" so asking which is more frequently used
is kind of like comparing apples to oranges.
Putting the "apples" and "oranges" aside, it is hard to say how many lines of production
code exist for either of these languages. Estimates vary from billions to millions.
However, I don't think anybody would claim that the active code base is insignificant.
BASIC (excluding "Visual Basic") was largely a personal computer language.
There have been a few ports to
larger machines (eg. VAX BASIC - Oh that was fun) but I don't think this ever caught on.
I would be surprised if there are any significant production systems written in BASIC
today. Just say "BAISC" to any "old timer" and their minds will flood with fond
memories. Other than that it is pretty much gone.
When did COBOL stop being used
The COBOL legacy is huge. As such, there is a lot of legacy maintenance going on
today, and it will go on for many years to come.
Is there any new development? I would say less and less every year but it is
nowhere near coming to an end. I work in a very large shop and we actively develop new
COBOL applications. I don't believe we are alone.
Those that still actively develop systems in COBOL are not a bunch of "back woods"
idiots who don't know any better. They do it because COBOL "delivers the goods"
for the least cost per transaction processed. Believe me, if any other technology could
do it cheaper, faster and more reliably, COBOL would be gone tomorrow!
One can only get an appreciation for how wide spread COBOL is by
working in the financial, government or insurance industries - and then only
in an area where they have to push a lot of data around.
If you work outside of this environment it is like the language died a hundred yeas ago!
How did people react to the rise of COBOL?
In a couple of words: Not well.
COBOL came into existence just about the same time that the academic world made huge
breakthroughs in language theory and compiler design. COBOL missed that boat and has been
denigrated by everybody with an academic interest in computing ever since. I went through
university in the 70's and even at that time the word "COBOL" made us all cringe. The
hate for COBOL runs very deep.
Even the developers of COBOL could not have predicted the long term success of the
language. The original COBOL was specified by a "short range committee" so
that could it implemented with reasonable time and effort. The final "touches" would
be made by a "long range committee". The "long range committed" never materialized
and this is what we got!
The death of COBOL has been predicted as imminent since the 60's. It is still with
us and going strong.
Why? I think there are three big reasons:
Code stability. COBOL carries its legacy fairly well, major upgrades are rare. This
may not be a selling point if you are in the business of developing code. However,
if you are the one paying for it COBOL gets high marks on this one.
Performance. COBOL applications are generally developed where volume and/or
throughput are critical (eg. processing monthly bank statements, tax returns, etc.)
Track Record. Organizations that use COBOL generally know their track record. They
have a certain comfort level with cost/time estimates for major development projects
using COBOL and related technologies.
Taking on a new language and supporting technology to implement mission critical applications involves additional
and unknown risks (and unknown benefits).
Notice that all the reasons I have cited for COBOL's continued existence are driven by
cost and risk minimization. There is nothing from a developer's point of view that
makes developing in COBOL interesting. Blame corporate accountants for COBOL's
continued success.
On the brighter side, there are a few frameworks (eg. Bassett Frame Technology and XVCL) that can make COBOL development today tollerable, even, dare I say, interesting.
Was COBOL the first programming
language really being used in
financial, stock and banking systems?
For practical purposes this was all done in assembler, but Cobol was the first high level language to move into these domains.
Where exactly was COBOL used?
Any place where money changed hands, inventory was tracked, et al. Your use of the word "was" implies that it is not now used. Cobol is involved every time you swipe a credit card, ship a package, make a phone call...it is every where. Still.
Was it used more frequently than
Fortran or BASIC, for example?
Yes, very much so. Fortran is well geared for science geeks and engineers -- a noble calling -- but they don't exist in the numbers of the sales and marketing geeks, the Cobol domain.
Does anyone use BASIC? Doesn't that suck?
I don't know if you lived at that
time, but how did people react to the
rising COBOL? Did they expect it to be
the future?
People like credit cards. People like online access to their bank accounts. People like Voice Response Systems that give their balance and last 5 transactions. People like ATMS. People like fast airline and hotel bookings.
The only people who don't like what Cobol does for them are programmers that have never put the time and effort into understanding Cobol (but they hate it anyway).
When has COBOL actually stopped being
used to create new, big systems?
Ummm, never. Cobol is still actively developed and used all over the world. It isn't sexy and no Computer Science professor is going to tell you that it is "the next big thing" -- but if they knew what they were talking about they would be making money in the real world...
Are you sure that there are still
important legacy apps written in COBOL
out there? I can't believe that
somehow.
MasterCard. Visa. Naa...
No idea really, but LEO was used for payroll. It used a language similar to COBOL called CLEO.
COBOL is used all over the place. Mostly banks and big mainframe departments.
difficult to say. It was certainly popular back in the day.
Back in the days when COBOL had its heyday, the alternatives were for alternative niches - eg Fortran for scientific, Algol for academic, Cobol for financial. Did they expect it to be the future... possibly.
5,6. It still is used. Search for COBOL jobs, you'll get quite a few hits for banking and financial companies that are looking for programmers, architects, etc. Pays quite well too by all accounts.
Answering the last part:
Yes, there are certainly new COBOL applications being written at banks everyday. Large financial institutions usually have a mainframe or two around, as they (traditionally) have a much better uptime than standard servers, and can move a lot of data reliably.
Additionally, the people still doing COBOL are pretty darn good at what they do.
If you're dealing with billions of dollars of electronic transactions, reliably is worth paying for, even if it's not new or sexy to do so. Then again, I can't hotswap the processor out of my webserver; hotswapping any of the parts out of a mainframe is usually possible, and that's actually a pretty tech-sexy feature, if I gotta say so myself.
I managed to go almost 15 years in my career without touching a single line of COBOL, or even of seeing it. Until I got my last job, which is some enterprise middleware that links COBOL to web services and non-mainframe databases. My very first customer engagement at this new job was with a big-ass company with lots and lots of COBOL they wanted to integrate with newer systems.
Learning it has been a pain, mostly because there are few good PC-based COBOL engines left, but it's not really hard at all. And that is why it's still around. It does a job, does it well. It's showing it's age a bit in how it interacts with SOA frameworks, but even that problem is going away.
#Neal:
>
BASIC (excluding "Visual Basic") was largely a personal computer language.
There have been a few ports to
larger machines (eg. VAX BASIC - Oh that was fun) but I don't think this ever caught on.
BASIC also started on big machines. I remember programming with BASIC and a paper tape on a CDC back in 1974 in an environnement similar to this one http://www.museumwaalsdorp.nl/computer/en/comp742E.html.
RE code stability of cobol: Updates rare, but they are very disruptive, and are actively resisted by the installed base. When forced, conversions often are done in a compatibility mode and the testing alone can burn the entire SD budget for a year. OO cobol is a case in point as the real costs of conversion will exceed its benefits unless a total redesign is attempted. Consulting shops love this as they bill for time, but for the organization it has the potential to literally put them out of business. One of the great myths of this OO cobol exercise is the 'portability' of the skill set of cobol, but in fact it is the OOP/OOD skill which is lacking and must be taught to the legacy programmers. Learning a new paradigm is allays harder than learning a new tool ( language) and in point of fact the exercise makes no sense and is entertained only by that bastion of folly known as management ---as carefully mislead by the vendor community devoted as they are to the creation of 'value' for their shareholders. It is often an easy sale, and fools generally do deserve to be fleeced.
RE execution speed. This is not really worth a detailed response. Platforms are fast, and it is compilers that determine execution speed. I have examine the asm output from COBOL compilers and it is not any better than a good c compiler. More to the point classic COBOLS's lack of type safety , failure to support scope, failure to support parametrized procedures, failure to support explicit type conversion etc, leads to the mistaken impression that because it does not do any of this it is faster. In fact most of this requires only compile time support and the rest does not add much overhead ( and what little it does can be optimized out) where as it does make code reuse prohibitively expensive, make testing a nightmare, and produce brittle code.
It will only go away when it costs to much to fix. This may or may not happen, but it is more likely that the organizations will fail due to a major software issue which would have been trapped by a type safe language before then.( OOP will provide type safety but that will require that cobol programmers and business analysts learn to use types)
Can anyone give me an example of successful non-programmer, 5GL (not that I am sure what they are!), visual, 0 source code or similar tools that business users or analysts can use to create applications?
I don’t believe there are and I would like to be proven wrong.
At the company that I work at, we have developed in-house MVC that we use to develop web applications. It is basically a reduced state-machine written in XML (à la Spring WebFlow) for controller and a simple template based engine for presentation. Some of the benefits:
dynamic nature: no need to recompile to see the changes
reduced “semantic load”: basically, actions in controller know only “If”. Therefore, it is easy to train someone to develop apps.
The current trend in the company (or at least at management level) is to try to produce tools for the platform that require 0 source code, are visual etc. It has a good effect on clients (or at least at management level) since:
they can be convinced that this way they will need no programmers or at least will be able to hire end-of-the-lather programmers that cost much less than typical programmers.
It appears that there is a reduced risk involved, since the tool limits the implementer or user (just don’t use the word programmer!) in what he can do, so there is a less chance that he can introduce error
It appears to simplify the whole problem since there seems to be no programming involved (notoriously complex). Since applications load dynamically, there is less complexity then typically associated with J2EE lifecycle: compile, package, deploy etc.
I am personally skeptic that something like this can be achieved. Solution we have today has a number of problems:
Implementers write JavaScript code to enrich pages (could be solved by developing widgets). Albeit client-side, still a code that can become very complex and result in some difficult bugs.
There is already a visual tool, but implementers prefer editing XML since it is quicker and easier. For comparison, I guess not many use Eclipse Spring WebFlow plug-in to edit flow XML.
There is a very poor reuse in the solution (based on copy-paste of XML). This hampers productivity and some other aspects, like fostering business knowledge.
There have been numerous performance and other issues based on incorrect use of the tools. No matter how reduced the playfield, there is always space for error.
While the platform is probably more productive than Struts, I doubt it is more productive than today’s RAD web frameworks like RoR or Grails.
Verbosity
Historically, there have been numerous failures in this direction. The idea of programs written by non-programmers is old but AFAIK never successful. At certain level, anything but the power of source code becomes irreplaceable.
Today, there is a lot of talk about DSLs, but not as something that non-programmers should write, more like something they could read.
It seems to me that the direction company is taking in this respect is a dead-end. What do you think?
EDIT: It is worth noting (and that's where some of insipiration is coming from) that many big players are experimenting in that direction. See Microsoft Popfly, Google Sites, iRise, many Mashup solutions etc.
Yes, it's a dead end. The problem is simple: no matter how simple you make the expression of a solution, you still have to analyze and understand the problem to be solved. That's about 80-90% of how (most good) programmers spend their time, and it's the part that takes the real skill and thinking. Yes, once you've decided what to do, there's some skill involved in figuring out how to do that (in a programming language of your choice). In most cases, that's a small part of the problem, and the least open to things like schedule slippage, cost overrun or outright failure.
Most serious problems in software projects occur at a much earlier stage, in the part where you're simply trying to figure out what the system should do, what users must/should/may do which things, what problems the system will (and won't) attempt to solve, and so on. Those are the hard problems, and changing the environment to expressing the solution in some way other that source code will do precisely nothing to help any of those difficult problems.
For a more complete treatise on the subject, you might want to read No Silver Bullet - Essence and Accident in Software Engineering, by Frederick Brooks (Included in the 20th Anniversary Edition of The Mythical Man-Month). The entire paper is about essentially this question: how much of the effort involved in software engineering is essential, and how much is an accidental result of the tools, environments, programming languages, etc., that we use. His conclusion was that no technology was available that gave any reasonable hope of improving productivity by as much as one order of magnitude.
Not to question the decision to use 5GLs, etc, but programming is hard.
John Skeet - Programming is Hard
Coding Horror - Programming is Hard
5GLs have been considered a dead-end for a while now.
I'm thinking of the family of products that include Ms Access, Excel, Clarion for DOS, etc. Where you can make applications with 0 source code and no programmers. Not that they are capable of AI quality operations, but they can make very usable applications.
There will always be "real" languages to do the work, but we can drag and drop the workflow.
I'm using Apple's Automator which allows users to chain together "Actions" exposed by the various applications on their systems.
Actions have inputs and/or outputs, some have UI elements and basic logic can be applied to the chain.
The key difference between automator
and other visual environments is that
the actions use existing application
code and don't require any special
installation.
More Info > http://www.macosxautomation.com/automator/
I've used it to "automate" many batch processes and had really great results (surprises me every time). I've got it running builds and backups and whenever i need to process a mess of text files it comes through.
I would love to know whether iHook or Platypus (osx wrapper builders for shell scripts) could let me develop plugins in python ....
There is definitely room for more applications like this and for more support from OSX application developers but the idea is sound.
Until there's major support there aren't many "actions" available, but a quick check on my system just showed me an extra 30 that i didn't know i had.
PS. There was another app for OS-preX called "Filter Tops" which had a much more limited set of plugins.
How about Dabble DB?
Of course, just like MS Access and other non-programmer programming platforms, it has some necessary limitations in order that the user won't get him or herself stuck... as John pointed out programming is hard. But it does give the user a lot of power, and it seems that most applications that non-programmers want to build are database-type applications anyway.
Polyglot, or multiple language, solutions allow you to apply languages to problems which they are best suited for. Yet, at least in my experience, software shops tend to want to apply a "super" language to all aspects of the problem they are trying to solve. Sticking with that language come "hell or high water" even if another language is available which solves the problem simply and naturally. Why do you or do you not implement using polyglot solutions?
I almost always advocate more than 1 language in a solution space (actually, more than 2 since SQL is part of so many projects). Even if the client likes a language with explicit typing and a large pool of talent, I advocate the use of scripting languages for administrative, testing, data scrubbing, etc.
The advantages of many-language boil down to "right tool for the job."
There are legitimate disadvantages, though:
Harder to have collective code ownership (not everyone is versed in all languages)
Integration problems (diminished in managed platforms)
Increased runtime overhead from infrastructure libraries (this is often significant)
Increased tooling costs (IDEs, analysis tools, etc.)
Cognitive "bumps" when switching from one to another. This is a double-edged sword: for those well-versed, different paradigms are complementary and when a problem arises in one there is often a "but in X I would solve this with Z!" and problems are solved rapidly. However, for those who don't quite grok the paradigms, there can be a real slow-down when trying to comprehend "What is this?"
I also think it should be said that if you're going to go with many languages, in my opinion you should go for languages with significantly different approaches. I don't think you gain much in terms of problem-solving by having, say, both C# and VB on a project. I think in addition to your mainstream language, you want to have a scripting language (high productivity for smaller and one-off tasks) and a language with a seriously different cognitive style (Haskell, Prolog, Lisp, etc.).
I've been lucky to work in small projects with the possibility to suggest a suitable language for my task. For example C as a low-level language, extending Lua for the high-level/prototyping has served very well, getting up to speed quickly on a new embedded platform. I'd always prefer two languages for any bigger project, one domain-specific fit to that particular project. It adds a lot of expressiveness for quickly trying out new features.
However probably this serves you best for agile development methods, whereas for a more traditional project the first hurdle to overcome would be choosing which language to use, when scripting languages tend to immediately seem "newcomers" with less marketing push or "seriousness" in their image.
The biggest issue with polyglot solutions is that the more languages involved, the harder it is to find programmers with the proper skill set. Particularly if any of the languages are even slightly esoteric, or hail from entirely different schools of design (e.g. - functional vs procedural vs object oriented). Yes, any good programmer should be able to learn what they need, but management often wants someone who can "hit the ground running", no matter how unrealistic that is.
Other reasons include code reuse, increased complexity interfacing between the different languages, and the inevitable turf wars over which language a particular bit of code should belong in.
All of that said, realize that many systems are polyglot by design -- anything using databases will have SQL in addition to some other language. And there's often scripting involved as well, either for actual code or for the build system.
Pretty much all of my professional programming experience has been in the above category. Generally there's a core language (C or C++), SQL of varying degrees, shell scripting, and possibly some perl or python code on the periphery.
My employer's attitude has always been to use what works.
This has meant that when we found some useful Perl modules (like the one that implements "Benford's Law", Statistics::Benford), I had to learn how to use ActiveState's PDK.
When we decided to add interval maths to our project, I had to learn Ada and how to use both GNAT and ObjectAda.
When a high-speed string library was requested, I had to relearn assembler and get used to MASM32 and WinAsm.
When we wanted to have a COM DLL of libiconv (based on Delphi Inspiration's code), I got reacquainted with Delphi.
When we wanted to use Dr. Bill Poser's libuninum, I had to relearn C, and how to use Visual C++ 6's IDE.
We still prototype things in VB6 and VBScript, because they're good at it.
Maybe sometime down the line I'll end up doing stuff in Forth, or Eiffel, or D, or, heaven help me, Haskell (I don't have anything against the language per se, it's just a very different paradigm.)
One issue that I've run into is that Visual Studio doesn't allow multiple languages to be mixed in a single project, forcing you to abstract things out into separate DLLs for each language, which isn't necessarily ideal.
I suspect the main reason, however, is the perception that switching back and forth between many different languages leads to programmer inefficiency. There is some truth to this, I switch constantly between JavaScript, C#, VBScript, and VB.NET and there is a bit of lost time as I switch from one language to another, as I mix my syntax a bit.
Still, there is definitely room for more "polyglot" solutions particularly that extend beyond using JavaScript and whatever back-end programming language.
Well, all the web is polyglot now with Java/PHP/Ruby in the back and JavaScript in the front...
Other examples that come to mind -- a flexible complex system written in a low level language (C or C++) with an embedded high level language (Python, Lua, Scheme) to provide customization and scripting interface. Microsoft Office and VBA, Blender and Python.
A project which can be done in a scripting language such as Python with performance critical or OS-dependent pieces done in C.
Both JVM and CLR are getting lots of new interesting scripting languages compatible. Java + Groovy, C# + IRonPython etc.