Absolutely, and I'd say that the set (for most companies) could (should?) be around 2 to 4 as a corporate objective.
Steve On 08/01/2008, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, fair point about too many languages, and people getting carried > away thinking it's ok to use as many languages as possible. But I also > think you summarized a key point pretty well, which is finding the right set > of complementary languages and avoiding using languages that overlap each > other too much. > > Eric > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 6:11:11 AM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Predictions for this Group > in 2008 > > Actually I'm pretty sure that any single Turing complete language on a > Turing complete computer can do everything that all the DSLs in the world > can do :) > > But its true that it is sometimes required to have a few languages where > that makes sense but what concerns me is that people appear to be heading > towards creating lots of languages and starting from a default position of > "many languages good" when the mindset should really be "why _won't_ this > language work". In support (where skills are not normally as high as in > development) having multiple languages, especially "optimal" and esoteric > DSLs doesn't reduce costs. The key is to have a limited set of languages, > so Java (for example) for basic app development, BPEL for process, SQL for > databases etc. Having Ruby & Java & PHP & C(where is the sharp key on a > mac?) & VB & Ada & PSQL & Perl & JavaScript etc etc for the application > development is a right pain in the arse, Having one application that > contained Java&Ruby&Perl&C&SQL&VB would increase costs. Having JavaScript > for the "active GUI" bit, Java (or Ruby) for the application bit and then > SQL for the database bit could decrease costs (although replacing the SQL > with a Java/Object centric approach would be cheaper than using Stored > Procs). > > My issue is with the mindset which thinks that multiple languages is the > best thing. its that mindset that put scripting into Java SE as "standard", > hence why I'm not a fan of the latest DSL craze. I'm not sure how it > actually moves us forwards rather than sideways. > > Steve > > > On 07/01/2008, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote: > > > > IMHO a set of easy to join DSLs will help reduce cost more than a > > single general purpose language that attempts to do it all...no language > > can, and as you said there have been many attempts such as Ada to prove the > > point. It's a nice idea - if the world could only agree on a single > > programming language things would be rosy (or should I say Ruby) but I for > > one don't anymore think that will be possible. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Steve Jones < jones.steveg@ gmail.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2008 2:23:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Predictions for this > > Group in 2008 > > > > On 04/01/2008, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com > > <e_newcomer%40yahoo.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > > > > > > > > > Good examples of DSLs that are already helping with some of these > > problems include > > > SQL, JavaScript/Ajax, and Erlang (maybe that's a stretch but I believe > > it was designed for > > > a specific purpose). > > > > > > > Which are fine, but are they DSLs or just technical programming > > languages for a specific purpose? Many purported DSLs are just other > > general languages that are better at certain specific tasks rather > > than being domain specific. Like the way LISP is better at lists than > > C but I wouldn't say that LISP was a DSL. > > > > > > > > > > > Simply put, DSLs recognize the fact that no general purpose > > programming language is > > > good at everything, and in human terms the more that's crammed into a > > language such > > > as Java the more difficult it is to learn and master. Breaking the > > problem up helps with > > > things like division of labor, creating the right tool for the right > > job, etc. You will find (I > > > believe) people who swear by Ruby on Rails because of its built in > > data handling > > > capabilities. Different languages have different strengths, in other > > words, which creates > > > overall benefit. > > > > Also however multiple languages cause disconnects in support and tend > > to drive up support costs to a large, potentially exponetial degree as > > they reduce the amount of industrialisation that can be done. This > > was something that the DoD discovered in the 1970s and which led to > > the definition of Ada. Now Ada wasn't a success but I haven't seen > > any research since that says that mutliple technical languages don't > > increase support costs. > > > > My point on DSL v new general langauge is born out by Ruby, its a new > > general language that has some potentially better data handling bits. > > What is the "domain" of Ruby? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the area of integration, an interesting emerging trend has been the > > identification of > > > common patterns. Using a DSL to implement an integration pattern > > greatly simplifies its > > > use. People can express an integration pattern using a few DSL > > keywords. > > > > Now this could be good, but I think we often in IT focus on reducing > > the 10% of software cost in development and ignoring the 90% of cost > > in support. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com <jones.steveg%40gmail.com>> > > > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > > <service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 10:17:35 AM > > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Predictions for this > > Group in 2008 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is DSL actually a problem or just something that IT technologists > > would like to do? What is the problem that DSLs actually solve and how do > > these DSLs reduce the TCO of ownership of systems and the complexity of IT > > estates. > > > > > > I'm sure that DSLs will gain ground, but I'm not convinced that there > > are benefits. > > > > > > > > > On 28/12/2007, Eric Newcomer < [EMAIL PROTECTED] com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this just goes to validate the conclusion of the W3C > > workshop earlier this year - people are using both REST and SOAP based > > approaches and getting value out of them. > > > > > > > > What I think we have solved (at least I would hope so) is that > > people on both sides have begun to acknowledge the reality of this > > situation. The world is neither entirely REST-oriented nor SOAP-oriented and > > is not likely to be any time soon. I think it's time to move on to the next > > problem, maybe domain specific languages... ? > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > > From: Mark Baker < [EMAIL PROTECTED] org> > > > > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:40:28 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Predictions for this > > Group in 2008 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/22/07, jeffrschneider <jeffrschneider@ hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 7. Mark Baker, aka, "I wont rest until you REST", finally gets to > > > > > rest. Congrats Mark. > > > > > > > > Promise? For every new RESTafarian convert, it seems like a couple > > > > more naysayers-sans- clue pop out of the woodwork, e.g. > > > > > > > > http://wisdomofgane sh.blogspot. com/2007/ 12/paying- restafarians- > > back-in-their- own.html > > > > > > > > But thanks for the kind words. It's been a long time coming 8-) > > > > > > > > Mark. > > > > -- > > > > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbake r.ca > > > > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus. com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. > > Try it now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > > Search. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try > > it > > now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping> > > >
