How to gain traction for a new language - was: Re: [The Java Posse] Re: From Scala, back to Java

[phil swenson]

I think what Fantom (or any other language trying to gain traction) needs is a really good full stack web framework.  Before Rails, Ruby was very obscure.

So my advice to the Scala, Fantom, Mirah, etc world would be:  copy Rails.  That's what Groovy did and Groovy has definitely gained traction.

And when I say copy Rails - I mean the whole stack.  So by whole stack I mean:  build/automation framework, database framework, interactive command line console, database migrations, easy configuration, set directory structure, dev/test/production modes, built in testing framework.

Even Java doesn't have such a stack.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Casper Bang <caspe...@gmail.com> wrote:

If Fantom gains true generics, hopefully it can attract some of those
that wants something more powerful than Java but not as advanced as
Scala. There's clearly a missing hybrid piece which Java/Oracle won't
fill and thus people jump to Scala - funny enough many of the same
people who have been claiming C# is too advanced.

On Mar 22, 10:51 am, Phil <p...@surfsoftconsulting.com> wrote:
> I read Jonathan's and Cedric's posts (and many of the comments) and
> both to be balanced and informative (in contrast to some of the
> comments). I don't think anybody would argue that a functional
> language can be more complex than an OO one, but it is a shame that
> the tools still seem to be lacking - something Cedric added more
> detail around. Java was better served inside seven years but there are
> still areas where the tooling is neglected or less than perfect.
> Demand will elicit supply, so as any new language (it feels a bit
> strange to refer albeit indirectly to Scala as a new language) gains
> traction more people go looking for tools and a percentage of those
> people will contribute to the tools themselves.
>
> All said, Scala is still the functional language I will turn to when I
> have the time to look at one in more detail. But sorry, Dick, I'm on
> the wrong continent for training!
>
> On Mar 21, 4:44 pm, ranjith <sen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > OK I did not say it -
> > (Sorry to post a link, but it is worth it.)http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=562
>
> > Dick, I am looking at you too..
> > Here is what Cedric beust said..http://beust.com/weblog/2011/02/23/from-scala-back-to-java/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

[Phil]

If I wanted to adopt a new language to implement some tricksy code
(for example to do CFD modelling) I'd be looking for a full stack to
give me a compiler, tight test, build and CI integration, solid IDE
support including full debug (local and remote), and a low pain
threshold when using the language with Java in particular.

If I was building a web site, then I'd look for a language with a web
stack that made life simpler and me more productive than what I was
already using.

I'm actually quite keen on the concept of using a mix of languages to
get the job done, using a DSL to better describe a problem domain and
then Java for the nuts and bolts would be fine. Of course you need to
keep the developer metaphor similar enough so that it isn't used as an
excuse to avoid getting hands dirty.

On Mar 22, 2:44 pm, phil swenson <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think what Fantom (or any other language trying to gain traction) needs is
> a really good full stack web framework.  Before Rails, Ruby was very
> obscure.
>
> So my advice to the Scala, Fantom, Mirah, etc world would be:  copy Rails.
>  That's what Groovy did and Groovy has definitely gained traction.
>
> And when I say copy Rails - I mean the whole stack.  So by whole stack I
> mean:  build/automation framework, database framework, interactive command
> line console, database migrations, easy configuration, set directory
> structure, dev/test/production modes, built in testing framework.
>
> Even Java doesn't have such a stack.
>

[Casper Bang]

On Mar 22, 3:44 pm, phil swenson <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think what Fantom (or any other language trying to gain traction) needs is
> a really good full stack web framework.  Before Rails, Ruby was very
> obscure.

Hmm it's true that Ruby got a boost due to Rails, but I am not sure
you can generalize like that. Rails unique use of generators and
conventions is a result of dynamic typing and very (too?) flexible
syntax. And looking around it seems as if RoR caters to a certain
niche of greenfield/grassroot development and its adoption has peeked
[http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/paperinfo/tpci/Ruby.html].

> So my advice to the Scala, Fantom, Mirah, etc world would be:  copy Rails.
>  That's what Groovy did and Groovy has definitely gained traction.
> And when I say copy Rails - I mean the whole stack.  So by whole stack I
> mean:  build/automation framework, database framework, interactive command
> line console, database migrations, easy configuration, set directory
> structure, dev/test/production modes, built in testing framework.

Odd that you mention Mirah in this context, given that its design goal
is to cater to no runtime library whatsoever.

> Even Java doesn't have such a stack.

No because your listed criteria would require a benevolent dictator.
In fact, it sounds an awful lot like the Microsoft world.

[Phil]

So in summary we are saying that a well stocked toolbox results in the
job being done well, provided the toolbox matches the job, and that
this fosters uptake. Depth is required for longevity however.

[phil swenson]

Hmm it's true that Ruby got a boost due to Rails, but I am not sure
you can generalize like that. Rails unique use of generators and
conventions is a result of dynamic typing and very (too?) flexible
syntax. And looking around it seems as if RoR caters to a certain
niche of greenfield/grassroot development and its adoption has peeked
[http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/paperinfo/tpci/Ruby.html].

You can do most of what Rails does without dynamic typing.  In Java you could use annotations.  Or instead of dynamic methods use parameters on static methods - instead of Model.findByName("phil"), Model.find("name",  "phil").  But I would hope the "Next Big Language" would offer optional dynamic typing anyway.

As far as greenfield development - we are talking about new languages here right?  So everything is greenfield.

 

 

Odd that you mention Mirah in this context, given that its design goal
is to cater to no runtime library whatsoever.

I don't see how that matters.  You can add libraries frameworks as needed.  The question is:  why Mirah?  I'm giving a potential answer:  an excellent web framework.

 

> Even Java doesn't have such a stack.

No because your listed criteria would require a benevolent dictator.
In fact, it sounds an awful lot like the Microsoft world.

Most frameworks have benevolent dictators don't they?  I can't just go in an add 40 features to Struts.  I'm saying you need a bigger scope for a framework (full stack).  Grails did this mostly, they pieced together a bunch of existing frameworks and integrated them into a full stack.

In the java world you have so many choices to make when you want to start a new project.  You have to pick a build system, a test framework, a project directory layout, web framework, persistence framework, configuration strategy. In the Rails world, you just start type on the console: "rails myproject", start coding and creating real business value :)  BTW, just because these decisions are made for you in Rails, doesn't mean you can't deviate via plugins, etc.  It's just there are "reasonable defaults".

And the reason I targeted "web framework" is it's the sweet spot.  Every (almost) company developing a new product needs a web app.  It's the UI.