Decline and fall of scripting languages ?

[Kay Schluehr]

No good news for scripting-language fans:

http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/pseco...odeid,113.html

Regards
Kay

[Paddy]

Do you know anyone who has dropped LAMP for a proprietary Web solution?
Or vice versa?
Know any sys-admins that have dropped their use of scripting languages
for something else?
What are the alternatives that are supposedly driving scripting
languages out?

- I'm unconvinced.

[Reinhold Birkenfeld]

Kay Schluehr wrote:

No good news for scripting-language fans:

http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/pseco...odeid,113.html

The study was conducted by Evans Data Corporation. Look here:

http://www.evansdata.com/n2/about_us_clients.shtml

Do you see the PSF or Larry Wall on the list?

Reinhold

[Cliff Wells]

On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 03:24 -0700, Kay Schluehr wrote:

No good news for scripting-language fans:

http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/pseco...odeid,113.html

It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).

PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.

Commercially funded studies are completely untrustworthy. I've seen
contradictory studies published within months of each other by the same
research firms - it was more indicative of a change in clientelle than
anything else.

Cliff

--
cl***@develix.c om
http://www.develix.com :: Web applications and hosting :: Linux, PostgreSQL and Python specialists ::

[Paul Rubin]

Cliff Wells <cl***@develix. com> writes:

It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).

PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.

That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.

Lately I'm interested in OCAML as a possible step up from Python. It
has bogosity of its own (much of it syntactic) but it has static
typing and a serious compiler, from what I understand. I don't think
I can grok it from just reading the online tutorial; I'm going to have
to code something in it, once I get a block of time available. Any
thoughts?

[Joseph Garvin]

Paul Rubin wrote:

Cliff Wells <cl***@develix. com> writes:

It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).

PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.

That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.

www.google.com

[Paul Rubin]

Joseph Garvin <k0*****@kzoo.e du> writes:

That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.

www.google.com

Thanks but I wanted a more Pythonic point of view.

[Robert Kern]

Paul Rubin wrote:

Joseph Garvin <k0*****@kzoo.e du> writes:

That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.

www.google.com

Thanks but I wanted a more Pythonic point of view.

google('"ruby on rails" python')

Plenty of Pythonistas posting paragraphs pontificating on the Pythonic
perspective.

--
Robert Kern
rk***@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

[Kay Schluehr]

Paul Rubin wrote:

Cliff Wells <cl***@develix. com> writes:

It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).

PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.
That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an interpreter. I can't see
punting Python for it.

Exacly. While Pythons main attitude is reducing clutter and redundant
design while staying within an OO mindframe, Ruby reintroduces perlish
clutter. Ruby was mentioned to be a more clean OO language than Python
in times where Python didn't support inheritance from builtins.
Nowadays anonymus blocks are the single most discriminative feature
Ruby is praised for. Therefore Ruby seems to be more modern than Python
to some people allthough it's design concept is reactionary - or
"postmodern " what may be the same in post-postmodern times ;-)
Lately I'm interested in OCAML as a possible step up from Python. It
has bogosity of its own (much of it syntactic) but it has static
typing and a serious compiler, from what I understand. I don't think
I can grok it from just reading the online tutorial; I'm going to have
to code something in it, once I get a block of time available. Any
thoughts?

The whole ML family ( including OCaml ) and languages like Haskell
based on a Hindley-Milnor type system clearly make a difference. I
would say that those languages are also cutting edge in language theory
research. It should be definitely interesting to you. Since there is no
single language implementation you might also find one that supports
concepts you need most e.g. concurrency:

http://cml.cs.uchicago.edu/

Regards,
Kay

[Paul Rubin]

"Kay Schluehr" <ka**********@g mx.net> writes:

The whole ML family ( including OCaml ) and languages like Haskell
based on a Hindley-Milnor type system clearly make a difference. I
would say that those languages are also cutting edge in language theory
research. It should be definitely interesting to you. Since there is no
single language implementation you might also find one that supports
concepts you need most e.g. concurrency:

http://cml.cs.uchicago.edu/

Thanks. That link doesn't work right now but I'll try again later.

I wonder why the ML's didn't just dispense with the syntax nonsense
and present themselves unabashedly as statically typed Lisp dialects
complete with parentheses.

For concurrency, Oz looks neat, but probably doomed to Python-like
slow performance (at least the shootout benchmarks have been pretty
poor). I find it easier to understand than ML though I haven't coded
anything in it either. I wonder if using logic variables for
inter-thread communication without careful conventions can lead to
total spaghetti.

I also want to check out Erlang and Occam, in my copious free time.