>If VB programmers were the intended audience, then I would agree. >However, given how popular functional programming already is in the >embedded world, as well the number of functional programmers working on >systems development, I cannot help but attribute your bias to the same >C/C++ jingoism I hear spouted every time a new language shows up which >corrects the faulty designs of the 1970s. > >Supposedly Java would never amount to anything because automatic garbage >collection was too inefficient for "real" programmers; now Java is >considered isomorphic to C++. Supposedly Ruby would never amount to >anything because it uses an object model based off Smalltalk instead of >struct-based programming in C. Before Ruby, much the same was said about >Python. Now, Python's considered isomorphic to Java. Meanwhile, such >outre languages as Erlang, Haskell, and Scala are doing just fine for >themselves. At least one in 230 IT jobs in the UK is using one of those >three frightening languages[3].
I program mainly in C# but also quite a lot in C, C++ and Ocaml and have managed a embedded dev team (C++) . My concern is not for myself but the normal programmers I have worked with , most of them just don't care about the language they write it as long as they get a pay check . Getting these people to not just use a new language but use it productively is a major issue and the closer you are to what Is familiar the better the chances of success. Why do all the young programmers program Java /PHP and the old ones (exp embedded) are C++ and older still Cobol ? Because B type programmers don't change much and people are hired with the skills already , often from a Uni course. Cobol is more popular than any of those programming languages how many young people learn it ? And please note nowhere did I state GC or introducing functional programming is a bad thing , I'm just saying for the widest and easiest adoption languages close to C and English do best and to go gentle ....Large scale adoption means better compilers , tools and is self reinforcing. If C# and Java could do embedded development , then more than half of the C/C++ dev teams would change. >Yes, BitC should try to go gently on its intended audience. I could be >wrong, but I don't get the impression that audience is programmers >who've never moved beyond C++. The vast majority of developers I have met are experienced in only a single language ( though they may know a few from Unie ) and unwilling to change. I suppose the real Q is whether BitC is focusing on challenging Erlang and other functional languages in the system/embedded space or is it looking to convert C/C++ devs ? C , C# , Java and C++ derivatives are probably 50-60% of programming and most of the rest is scripting PHP , Python etc. C and C++ are in need of replacement, it seems to leave a huge audience if you just target functional System programmers. A language making 1 % is no big deal as they say in that thread Cobol still has more ,and if you rise up to 1% and then start falling I don't think the language can be perceived as successful. Ben _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
