Related
I'm trying to visualize some simple automatic physical systems (such things as pendulum, robot arms,etc.) in Haskell.
Often those systems can be described by equations like
df/dt = c*f(t) + u(t)
where u(t) represents some kind of 'intelligent control'. Those systems look to fit very nicely in the Functional Reactive Programming paradigm.
So I grabbed the book "The Haskell School of Expression" by Paul Hudak,
and found that the domain specific language "FAL" (for Functional Animation Language) presented there actually works quite pleasently for my simple toy systems (although some functions, notably integrate, seemed to be a bit too lazy for an efficient use, but easily fixable).
My question is, what's the more mature, up-to-date, well-maintained, performance-tuned alternative for more advanced, or even practical applications today?
This wiki page lists several options for Haskell, but I'm not clear about the following respects:
The status of "reactive", the project from Conal Eliott who is (as I understand it) one of the inventers of this programming paradigm, looks a bit stale. I love his code, but maybe I should try other more up-to-date alternatives? What's the primary difference between them, in terms of syntax/performance/runtime-stability?
To quote from a survey in 2011, Section 6, "... FRP implementations are still not efficient enough or predictable enough in performance to be used effectively in domains which require latency guarantees ...". Alghough the survey suggests some interesting possible optimizations, given the fact that FRP is there for more than 15 years, I get the impression that this performance problem might be something very or even inherently difficult to solve at least within a few years. Is this true?
The same author of the survey talks about "time leaks" in his blog. Is the problem unique to FRP, or something we are generally having when programming in a pure, non-strict language? Have you ever found it just too difficult to stabilize an FRP-based system over time, if not performant enough?
Is this still a research level project? Are the people like plant engineers, robotics engineers, financial engineers, etc. actually using them (in whaterver language that suits their needs)?
Although I personally prefer a Haskell implementation, I'm open to other suggestions. For example, it would be particularly fun to have an Erlang implementation --- it would then be very easy to have an intelligent, adaptive, self-learning server process!
Right now there are mainly two practical Haskell libraries out there for functional reactive programming. Both are maintained by single persons, but are receiving code contributions from other Haskell programmers as well:
Netwire focusses on efficiency, flexibility and predictability. It has its own event paradigm and can be used in areas where traditional FRP does not work, including network services and complex simulations. Style: applicative and/or arrowized. Initial author and maintainer: Ertugrul Söylemez (this is me).
reactive-banana builds on the traditional FRP paradigm. While it is practical to use it also serves as ground for classic FRP research. Its main focus is on user interfaces and there is a ready-made interface to wx. Style: applicative. Initial author and maintainer: Heinrich Apfelmus.
You should try both of them, but depending on your application you will likely find one or the other to be a better fit.
For games, networking, robot control and simulations you will find Netwire to be useful. It comes with ready-made wires for those applications, including various useful differentials, integrals and lots of functionality for transparent event handling. For a tutorial visit the documentation of the Control.Wire module on the page I linked.
For graphical user interfaces currently your best choice is reactive-banana. It already has a wx interface (as a separate library reactive-banana-wx) and Heinrich blogs a lot about FRP in this context including code samples.
To answer your other questions: FRP isn't suitable in scenarios where you need real-time predictability. This is largely due to Haskell, but unfortunately FRP is difficult to realize in lower level languages. As soon as Haskell itself becomes real-time-ready, FRP will get there, too. Conceptually Netwire is ready for real-time applications.
Time leaks aren't really a problem anymore, because they are largely related to the monadic framework. Practical FRP implementations simply don't offer a monadic interface. Yampa has started this and Netwire and reactive-banana both build on that.
I know of no commercial or otherwise large scale projects using FRP right now. The libraries are ready, but I think the people aren't – yet.
Although there are some good answers already, I'm going to attempt to answer your specific questions.
reactive is not usable for serious projects, due to time leak problems. (see #3). The current library with the most similar design is reactive-banana, which was developed with reactive as an inspiration, and in discussion with Conal Elliott.
Although Haskell itself is inappropriate for hard real-time applications, it is possible to use Haskell for soft realtime applications in some cases. I'm not familiar with current research, but I don't believe this is an insurmountable problem. I suspect that either systems like Yampa, or code generation systems like Atom, are possibly the best approach to solving this.
A "time leak" is a problem specific to switchable FRP. The leak occurs when a system is unable to free old objects because it may need them if a switch were to occur at some point in the future. In addition to a memory leak (which can be quite severe), another consequence is that, when the switch occurs, the system must pause while the chain of old objects is traversed to generate current state.
Non-switchable frp libraries such as Yampa and older versions of reactive-banana don't suffer from time leaks. Switchable frp libraries generally employ one of two schemes: either they have a special "creation monad" in which FRP values are created, or they use an "aging" type parameter to limit the contexts in which switches can occur. elerea (and possibly netwire?) use the former, whereas recent reactive-banana and grapefruit use the latter.
By "switchable frp", I mean one which implements Conal's function switcher :: Behavior a -> Event (Behavior a) -> Behavior a, or identical semantics. This means that the shape of the network can dynamically switch as it's run.
This doesn't really contradict #ertes's statement about monadic interfaces: it turns out that providing a Monad instance for an Event makes time leaks possible, and with either of the above approaches it's no longer possible to define the equivalent Monad instances.
Finally, although there's still a lot of work remaining to be done with FRP, I think some of the newer platforms (reactive-banana, elerea, netwire) are stable and mature enough that you can build reliable code from them. But you may need to spend a lot of time learning the ins and outs in order to understand how to get good performance.
I'm going to list a couple of items in the Mono and .Net space and one from the Haskell space that I found not too long ago. I'll start with Haskell.
Elm - link
Its description as per its site:
Elm aims to make front-end web development more pleasant. It
introduces a new approach to GUI programming that corrects the
systemic problems of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Elm allows you to
quickly and easily work with visual layout, use the canvas, manage
complicated user input, and escape from callback hell.
It has its own variant of FRP. From playing with its examples it seems pretty mature.
Reactive Extensions - link
Description from its front page:
The Reactive Extensions (Rx) is a library for composing asynchronous
and event-based programs using observable sequences and LINQ-style
query operators. Using Rx, developers represent asynchronous data
streams with Observables, query asynchronous data streams using LINQ
operators, and parameterize the concurrency in the asynchronous data
streams using Schedulers. Simply put, Rx = Observables + LINQ +
Schedulers.
Reactive Extensions comes from MSFT and implements many excellent operators that simplify handling events. It was open sourced just a couple of days ago. It's very mature and used in production; in my opinion it would have been a nicer API for the Windows 8 APIs than the TPL-library provides; because observables can be both hot and cold and retried/merged etc, while tasks always represent hot or done computations that are either running, faulted or completed.
I've written server-side code using Rx for asynchronocity, but I must admit that writing functionally in C# can be a bit annoying. F# has a couple of wrappers, but it's been hard to track the API development, because the group is relatively closed and isn't promoted by MSFT like other projects are.
Its open sourcing came with the open sourcing of its IL-to-JS compiler, so it could probably work well with JavaScript or Elm.
You could probably bind F#/C#/JS/Haskell together very nicely using a message broker, like RabbitMQ and SocksJS.
Bling UI Toolkit - link
Description from its front page:
Bling is a C#-based library for easily programming images, animations,
interactions, and visualizations on Microsoft's WPF/.NET. Bling is
oriented towards design technologists, i.e., designers who sometimes
program, to aid in the rapid prototyping of rich UI design ideas.
Students, artists, researchers, and hobbyists will also find Bling
useful as a tool for quickly expressing ideas or visualizations.
Bling's APIs and constructs are optimized for the fast programming of
throw away code as opposed to the careful programming of production
code.
Complimentary LtU-article.
I've tested this, but not worked with it for a client project. It looks awesome, has nice C# operator overloading that form the bindings between values. It uses dependency properties in WPF/SL/(WinRT) as event sources. Its 3D animations work well on reasonable hardware. I would use this if I end up on a project in need for visualizations; probably porting it to Windows 8.
ReactiveUI - link
Paul Betts, previously at MSFT, now at Github, wrote that framework. I've worked with it pretty extensively and like the model. It's more decoupled than Blink (by its nature from using Rx and its abstractions) - making it easier to unit test code using it. The github git client for Windows is written in this.
Comments
The reactive model is performant enough for most performance-demanding applications. If you are thinking of hard real-time, I'd wager that most GC-languages have problems. Rx, ReactiveUI create some amount of small object that need to be GCed, because that's how subscriptions are created/disposed and intermediate values are progressed in the reactive "monad" of callbacks. In general on .Net I prefer reactive programming over task-based programming because callbacks are static (known at compile time, no allocation) while tasks are dynamically allocated (not known, all calls need an instance, garbage created) - and lambdas compile into compiler-generated classes.
Obviously C# and F# are strictly evaluated, so time-leak isn't a problem here. Same for JS. It can be a problem with replayable or cached observables though.
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.
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.
Have you actually "tried" (means programmed in, not just read an article on it) Erlang and decided against it for a project? If so, why? Also, if you have opted to go back to your old language, or to use another functional language like F#, Haskell, Clojure, Scala, or something else then this counts too, and state why.
I returned to Haskell for my personal projects from Erlang for the simple virtue of Haskell's amazing type system. Erlang gives you a ton of tools to handle when things go wrong. Haskell gives you tools to keep you from going wrong in the first place.
When working in a language with a strong type system you are effectively proving free theorems about your code every time you compile.
You also get a bunch of overloading sugar from Haskell's typeclass machinery, but that is largely secondary to me -- even if it does allow me to express a number of abstractions that would be terribly verbose or non-idiomatic and unusable in Erlang (e.g. Haskell's category-extras).
I love Erlang, I love its channels and its effortless scalability. I turn to it when these are the things I need. Haskell isn't a panacea. I give up a better operational understanding of space consumption. I give up the magical one pass garbage collector. I give up OTP patterns and all that effortless scalability.
But its hard for me to give up the security blanket that, as is commonly said, in Haskell, if it typechecks, it is probably correct.
We use Haskell, OCaml and (now) F# so for us it has nothing to do with lack of C-like syntax. Rather we skip Erlang because:
It's dynamically typed (we're fans of Haskell's type system)
Doesn't provide a 'real' string type (I understand why, but it's annoying that this hasn't been corrected at the language level yet)
Tends to have poor (incomplete or unmaintained) database drivers
It isn't batteries included and doesn't appear to have a community working on correcting this. If it does, it isn't highly visible. Haskell at least has Hackage, and I'd guess that's what has us choosing that language over any other. In Windows environments F# is about to have the ultimate advantage here.
There are probably other reasons I can't think of right now, but these are the major points.
The best reason to avoid Erlang is when you cannot commit to the functional way of programming.
I read an anti-Erlang blog rant a few weeks ago, and one of the author's criticisms of Erlang is that he couldn't figure out how to make a function return a different value each time he called it with the same arguments. What he really hadn't figured out is that Erlang is that way on purpose. That's how Erlang manages to run so well on multiple processors without explicit locking. Purely functional programming is side-effect-free programming. You can arm-twist Erlang into working like our ranting blogger wanted, adding side effects, but in doing so you throw away the value Erlang offers.
Pure functional programming is not the only right way to program. Not everything needs to be mathematically rigorous. If you determine your application would be best written in a language that misuses the term "function", better cross Erlang off your list.
I have used Erlang in a few project already. I often use it for restful services. Where I don't use it however is for complex front end web applications where tools like Ruby on Rails are far better. But for the powerbroker behind the scenes I know of no better tool than Erlang.
I also use a few applications written in Erlang. I use CouchDB and RabbitMQ a bit and I have set up a few EJabberd servers. These applications are the most powerful, easiest and flexible tools in their field.
Not wanting to use Erlang because it does not use JVM is in my mind pretty silly. JVM is not some magical tool that is the best in doing everything in the world. In my mind the ability to choose from an arsenal of different tools and not being stuck in a single language or framework is what separates experts from code monkeys.
PS: After reading my comment back in context I noticed it looked like I was calling oxbow_lakes a code monkey. I really wasn't and apologize if he took it like that. I was generalizing about types of programmers and I would never call an individual such a negative name based on one comment by him. He is probably a good programmer even though I encourage him to not make the JVM some sort of a deal breaker.
Whilst I haven't, others on the internet have, e.g.
We investigated the relative merits of
C++ and Erlang in the implementation
of a parallel acoustic ray tracing
algorithm for the U.S. Navy. We found
a much smaller learning curve and
better debugging environment for
parallel Erlang than for
pthreads-based C++ programming. Our
C++ implementation outperformed the
Erlang program by at least 12x.
Attempts to use Erlang on the IBM Cell
BE microprocessor were frustrated by
Erlang's memory footprint. (Source)
And something closer to my heart, which I remember reading back in the aftermath of the ICFP contest:
The coding was very straightforward,
translating pseudocode into C++. I
could have used Java or C#, but I'm at
the point where programming at a high
level in C++ is just as easy, and I
wanted to retain the option of quickly
dropping down into some low-level
bit-twiddling if it came down to it.
Erlang is my other favorite language
for hacking around in, but was worried
about running into some performance
problem that I couldn't extricate
myself from. (Source)
For me, the fact that Erlang is dynamically typed is something that makes me wary. Although I do use dynamically typed languages because some of them are just so very problem-oriented (take Python, I solve a lot of problems with it), I wish they were statically typed instead.
That said, I actually intended to give Erlang a try for some time, and I’ve just started downloading the source. So your “question” achieved something after all. ;-)
I know Erlang since university, but have never used it in my own projects so far. Mainly because I'm mostly developing desktop applications, and Erlang is not a good language for making nice GUIs. But I will soon implement a server application, and I will give Erlang a try, because that's what it's good for. But I'm worring that I need more librarys, so maybe I'll try with Java instead.
A number of reasons:
Because it looks alien from anyone used to the C family of languages
Because I wanted to be able to run on the Java Virtual Machine to take advantage of tools I knew and understood (like JConsole) and the years of effort which have gone into JIT and GC.
Because I didn't want to have to rewrite all the (Java) libraries I've built up over the years.
Because I have no idea about the Erlang "ecosystem" (database access, configuration, build etc).
Basically I am familiar with Java, its platform and ecosystem and I have invested much effort into building stuff which runs on the JVM. It was easier by far to move to scala
I Decided against using Erlang for my project that was going to be run with a lot of shared data on a single multi-processor system and went with Clojure becuase Clojure really gets shared-memory-concurrency. When I have worked on distributed data storage systems Erlang was a great fit because Erlang really shines at distributed message passing systems. I compare the project to the best feature in the language and choose accordingly
Used it for a message gateway for a proprietary, multi-layered, binary protocol. OTP patterns for servers and relationships between services as well as binary pattern matching made the development process very easy. For such a use case I'd probably favor Erlang over other languages again.
The JVM is not a tool, it is a platform. Although I am all in favour of choosing the best tool for the job the platform is mostly already determined. Unless I am developing something standalone, from scratch and without the desire to reuse any existing code/library (three aspects that are unlikely in isolation already) I may be free to choose the platform.
I do use multiple tools and languages but I mainly targetg the JVM platform. That precludes Erlang for most if not all of my projects, as interesting as some of it concepts are.
Silvio
While I liked many design aspects of the Erlang runtime and the OTP platform, I found it to be a pretty annoying program language to develop in. The commas and periods are totally lame, and often require re-writing the last character of many lines of code just to change one line. Also, some operations that are simple in Ruby or Clojure are tedious in Erlang, for example string handling.
For distributed systems relying on a shared database the Mnesia system is really powerful and probably a good option, but I program in a language to learn and to have fun, and Erlang's annoying factor started to outweigh the fun factor once I had gotten past the basic bank account tutorials and started writing plugins for an XMPP server.
I love Erlang from the concurrency standpoint. Erlang really did concurrency right. I didn't end up using erlang primarily because of syntax.
I'm not a functional programmer by trade. I generally use C++, so I'm covet my ability to switch between styles (OOP, imperative, meta, etc). It felt like Erlang was forcing me to worship the sacred cow of immutable-data.
I love it's approach to concurrency, simple, beautiful, scalable, powerful. But the whole time I was programming in Erlang I kept thinking, man I'd much prefer a subset of Java that disallowed data sharing between thread and used Erlangs concurrency model. I though Java would have the best bet of restricting the language the feature set compatible with Erlang's processes and channels.
Just recently I found that the D Programing language offers Erlang style concurrency with familiar c style syntax and multi-paradigm language. I haven't tried anything massively concurrent with D yet, so I can't say if it's a perfect translation.
So professionally I use C++ but do my best to model massively concurrent applications as I would in Erlang. At some point I'd like to give D's concurrency tools a real test drive.
I am not going to even look at Erlang.
Two blog posts nailed it for me:
Erlang machinery walks the whole list to figure out whether they have a message to process, and the only way to get message means walking the whole list (I suspect that filtering messages by pid also involves walking the whole message list)
http://www.lshift.net/blog/2010/02/28/memory-matters-even-in-erlang
There are no miracles, indeed, Erlang does not provide too many services to deal with unavoidable overloads - e.g. it is still left to the application programmer to deal checking for available space in the message queue (supposedly by walking the queue to figure out the current length and I suppose there are no built-in mechanisms to ensure some fairness between senders).
erlang - how to limit message queue or emulate it?
Both (1) and (2) are way below naive on my book, and I am sure there are more software "gems" of similar nature sitting inside Erlang machinery.
So, no Erlang for me.
It seems that once you have to deal with a large system that requires high performance under overload C++ + Boost is still the only game in town.
I am going to look at D next.
I wanted to use Erlang for a project, because of it's amazing scalability with number of CPU'S. (We use other languages and occasionally hit the wall, leaving us with having to tweak the app)
The problem was that we must deliver our application on several platforms: Linux, Solaris and AIX, and unfortunately there is no Erlang install for AIX at the moment.
Being a small operation precludes the effort in porting and maintaining an AIX version of Erlang, and asking our customers to use Linux for part of our application is a no go.
I am still hoping that an AIX Erlang will arrive so we can use it.
What are some situations where languages should be mixed?
I'm not talking about using ASP.NET with C# and HTML or an application written in C accessing a SQL database through SQL queries. I'm talking about things like mixing C++ with Fortran or Ada with Haskell etc. for example.
[EDIT]
First of all: thank you for all your answers.
When I asked this question I had in mind that you always read "every language has its special purpose".
In general, you can get almost everything done in any language by using special libraries. But, if you are interested in learning different languages, why not take the programming language that serves your purpose best instead of a library that solves a problem your language wasn't originally designed for?
For example, in video games we use different languages for different purpose :
Application (Game) code : have to be fast, organized and most of the time cross-platform (at least win, MacOS is to be envisaged), often on constraint-heavy platforms (consoles), so C++ (and sometimes C and asm) is used.
Development Tools : level design tools generates data that the game code will play with. Those kind of tool don't need to run on the target platform (but if you can it's easier to debug) so often they are made with fast-development languages such as C#, Python, etc.
Script system : some parts of the games will have to be tweaked by the designers, using variables or scripts. It's really easier and cheap to embed a scripting language instead of writing one so Lua or other similar scripting languages are often used.
Web application : sometimes a game will require to provide some data online, most often in a database accessed with SQL. The web application then is written in a language that might be C#, Ruby(R.O.R.), Python, PHP or anything else that is good for the job. As it's about the web, you then have to use HTML/Javascript too.
etc...
In my game I use HTML/Javascript for GUI too.
[EDIT]
To answer your edit : the language you know the best is not always the most efficient tool for the work. That's why for example I use C++ for my home-made game because I know it best (I could use a lot of other languages as the targets are Win/Mac/Linux, not consoles) but I use Python for everything related to build process, file manipulation etc. I don't know Python in depth but it's fare easier to do quick file manipulation with it than with C++. I wouldn't use C++ for web application for obvious reasons.
In the end, you use what is efficient for the job. That's what you learn by working in real world constraints, with money, time and quality in mind.
Well, the most obvious (and the most common) situation would be when you use some high level language to make most of your program, reaping the benefits of fast development and robustness, while using some lower level language like C or even assembly to gain speed where it is important.
Also, many times it is necessary to interface with other software written in some other language. A good example here are APIs exposed by the operating system - they're usually written with C in mind (though I remember some old MacOS versions using Pascal). If you don't have a native binding for your language-compiler infrastructure, you have to write some interface code to "glue" your program with "the other side".
There are also some domain-specific languages that are tuned specifically to efficiently express some type of computation. You usually don't write your entire program in them, just some parts where it is the appropriate tool. Prolog is a good example.
Last but not least, you sometimes have heaps of old and tested code written in another language at hand, which you could benefit from using. Instead of reinventing the wheel in a new and better language, you may simply want to interface it to your new program. This is probably the most usual (if not the only) case when languages geared for similar uses are mixed together (was that C++ and Fortran you mentioned?).
Generally, different languages have different strengths and weaknesses. You should try to use the appropriate tool for the job at hand. If the benefits from expressing some parts of the program in a different language are greater than the problems this introduces, then it's best to go for it.
I know in your question you sort of ruled this out, but different languages are used for different domains.
Right now I am working on a data visualizer, the data is in a database so of course there is some SQL, but that hardly counts because it's small and required frequently. The data is turned into a series of graphs, I'm using R, which is like MATLAB but open source. It is a unique statistical language with some advanced plotting features.
A data visualizer isn't just a graph generator, so there needs to be a way to browse and navigate this pile of image files. We opted to use html with embedded javascript to build an offline "application" that can be easily distributed. It's offline in the sense that it is self contained, that html is carefully generated and the js inside it is carefully crafted to allow the user to browse thousands of images sorting or filtering by a number of criteria.
How do you carefully craft javascript and html based on a database structure that changes as the rest of my team makes progress? They are made by a perl program (single pass script really) that reads into the db for some structure and key information, and then outputs over 300 kilobytes of html/js. It's not entirely trivial html either, imagemaps that are carefully aligned with the R plots and some onclick() javascript allow the user to actually interact with a plain image plot so this whole thing feels like a real data browser/visualizer application.
That's four 'languages', five if you count SQL, just to make a single end product.
I dont think doing this in a single language would be a good choice, because we are exploiting the capabilities of a real web browser to give us a free GUI and frontend.
An excellent current example would be to write methods for creating XML documents in VB.NET, which has an "XML Literals" feature, which C# lacks. Since they're both .NET languages, there's no reason not to call one from the other:
Public Function GetEmployeeXml (ByVal salesTerritoryKey As Integer) As XElement
Using context As New AdventureWorksDW2008Entities
Dim x = <x>
<%= From s In context.DimSalesTerritory _
Where s.SalesTerritoryKey = salesTerritoryKey _
Select _
<SalesTerritory
region=<%= s.SalesTerritoryRegion %>
country=<%= s.SalesTerritoryCountry %>>
<%= From e in s.DimEmployee _
Select _
<Employee firstName=<%= e.FirstName %> lastName=<%= e.LastName %>>
<%= From sale in e.FactResellerSales _
Select _
<Sale
orderNumber=<%= sale.SalesOrderNumber %>
price=<%= sale.ExtendedAmount %>/> %>
</Employee> %>
</SalesTerritory> %>
</x>
Return x
End Using
End Function
The biggest reason you would mix langauges is because one language has advantages in certain areas, where another has advantages in another. So, you try to harness the capabilities of both by throwing them together. A common example is using C and ASM, because C is more abstract and makes it easy to do the more complex stuff in a program, however, you would want to use ASM to do base level stuff with hardware and the processor. So, they are often mixed, given the nature of C and its use in embedded systems.
Depending on what paradigm a language falls under, it has its pros and cons. For example, one might want to use the GUI capabilities of C# but use the efficient backtracking or Artificial Intelligence capabilities of Prolog (a language in the logical paradigm) to compute some details before displaying them.
A simplified example
Imagine trying to write a program that allows a user to play Chess against a computer.
(Potentially) I would:
1.) Create the visuals with Windows GUI Libraries.
2.) Calculate the possible moves using Prolog, and choose the best/most viable move.
3.) Retrieve the results from step 2 from Prolog in my C# code, and render the results.
4.) Allow for the gameplay and rapid development of visuals and UI in C# and rely on the Prolog for the calculations/backtracking
This most often happens when you already have code written in two or more different languages and you notice that it makes sense to combine the programs. Rewriting is expensive and takes time.
In the financial world you often have to keep programs alive (or replaced) 50 years. With technology replacement every 10 years, new contracts (mortgages, life insurance) are created in the newest language/environment. The four older ones just handle the monthly payments and changes to existing contracts. To know how the company is doing, you need to integrate data from all five systems.
I suppose keeping the old ones alive is cheaper than migrating each time to the newest technology. From a risk avoiding point of view it makes sense.
Web applications should probably not be mixed language for the developer. Smalltalk does just fine, with Gemstone for persistence and Seaside as web application framework. The multiple languages (javascript) can be hidden in the framework.
When 2 heads are better than one.
I've commonly seen games where flash was embedded with C# - with the AI and other heavy code running off a C++ DLL.
When forced to
Writing new code to augment a new system supported by an old framework
For instance in games (which are pretty hardcore applications) you usually have a very tight c++ engine that does all the heavy lifting and a scripting language (such as Lua) that's accessible and suited for making that collection of special cases that we call 'game' happen.
People here have most of the reason. I'll just have this one:
There is also the case of graceful degradation. For instance I am working on a legacy intranet, and we're changing little by little from a language to another so at this point we have different languages in the same system.
Device Programming - typically you would want to program the UI with the OS's native UI language (Java for Android for example) but would need to program the device drivers with something that gets more into the low level (like C).
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.