A programming language must have a reference point, a standard, which is used to decide what is in the language and how it behaves. There are different ways to build and distribute this standard:
Independent committee In the past it was an ANSI committee, today it is an ISO committee. The committee, independent of vendors, defines the language and publishes the standard. Anyone can create an implementation of the standard; the committee often provides tests to verify compliance with the standard.
Benevolent dictator A single person decides what is in the language and what is not. He (it is usually a male) runs a team of people who develop the implementation and publish it. The implementation is usually open source. Tests are used by the development team to ensure compliance with the standard. There may be more than one implementation published; the development team may publish advance and legacy versions, and other individuals or companies may publish their own implementations.
Corporate closed source A corporation designs a language and builds and publishes it as a product. The language may change at any time to suit the needs of the corporation. Other entities can publish "clones" of the language but they do not have access to the source code.
Corporate open source A corporation designs a language, builds and publishes it as in the "closed source" model, and then provides the source code as open source. Other entities can use the source code. The language can still change to suit the needs of the corporation.
These four models cover almost all programming languages. Looking at some popular programming languages, the grouping is:
Independent committee: FORTRAN, COBOL, C, C++, SQL, Ada, JavaScript
Benevolent dictator: Forth, Pascal, AWK, Perl, Python, Ruby
Corporate closed source: APL, PL/I, Visual Basic, Delphi, VB.NET, SAS, Objective-C, Objective-C++
Corporate open source: Java, C#, Swift
Some languages change over time. For example, BASIC started as with the "benevolent dictator" model, but Microsoft's success changed the dominate form to "corporate closed source". Java started as "corporate closed source" and is shifting to "corporate open source".
What's interesting is that the languages governed by independent committee tend to have longer lives. Of the seven languages (Fortran, Cobol, C, C++, SQL, Ada, and JavaScript) all but Ada are in use today. (Yes, Ada may be in use somewhere, on some obscure legacy project, but that is true of just about every language. Ada is, for all intents and purposes, a dead language.)
Languages governed by a benevolent dictator fare less well. Python and Ruby enjoy success today, while Perl declines from its previous popularity. Forth, Pascal, and Awk are used rarely and I see no activity, no growth to those languages.
Corporate languages enjoy popularity ... as long as the corporation pushes them. APL and PL/I, developed by IBM, are in the "dead" list. Microsoft's Visual Basic is dead and VB.NET (purported to be a successor to Visual Basic) is languishing. Delphi is used only in legacy applications.
I expect that with Apple's introduction of Swift, Objective-C and Objective-C++ will drop to "dead" status. The Mac OS X platform was the only place they were used. The current index at tiobe.com confirms this drop.
What does all of this mean? For anyone developing a large, long-term project, the selection of a language is important. Committee-governed languages last longer than other languages.
Notice that Java is not a committee-governed language. It is managed by Oracle.
Showing posts with label Objective-C. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Objective-C. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Where Apple is falling behind
Apple is popular right now. It has a well-received line of products, from MacBooks to iPhones to iPads. It has easy-to-use software, from OSX to iTunes and GarageBand. it has beaten Microsoft and Google in the markets that it chooses.
Yet in one aspect, Apple is falling behind.
Apple is using real processor technology, not the virtual processors that Microsoft and Google use. By "virtual processors", I mean the virtual layers that separate the application code from the physical processor. Microsoft has .NET with its virtual processor, its IL code, and its CLR. Google uses Java and Python, and those languages also have the virtual processing layer.
Most popular languages today have a virtual processing layer. Java uses its Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Perl, Python, and Ruby use their virtual processors.
But Apple uses Objective-C, which compiles to the physical processor. In this, Apple is alone.
Compiling to physical processor has the advantage of performance. The virtual processors of the JVM and .NET (and Perl, and Python...) impose a performance cost. A lot of work has been done to reduce that cost, but the cost is still there. Microsoft's use of .NET for its Windows Mobile offerings means higher demands for processor power and higher draw from the battery. An equivalent Apple product can run with less power.
Compiling to a virtual processor also has advantages. The virtual environments can be opened to debuggers and performance monitors, something not possible with a physical processor. Therefore, writing a debugger or a performance monitor in a virtual processor environment is easier and less costly.
The languages which use virtual processors all have the ability for class introspection (or reflection, as some put it). I don't know enough about Objective-C to know if this is possible, but I do know that C and C++ don't have reflection. Reflection makes it easier to create unit tests and perform some type checking on code, which reduces the long-term cost of the application.
The other benefit of virtual processors is freedom from the physical processor, or rather from the processor line. Programs written to the virtual processor can run anywhere, with the virtual processor layer. This is how Java can run anywhere: the byte-code is the same, only the virtual processor changes from physical processor to physical processor.
The advantages of performance are no longer enough to justify a physical processor. Virtual processors have advantages that help developers and reduce the development costs.
Is it possible that Apple is working on a virtual processor of its own? The technology is well within their abilities.
I suspect that Apple would build their own, rather than use any of the existing virtual processors. The two biggies, .NET and Java, are owned by companies not friendly to Apple. The engines for Perl, Python, and Ruby are nice but perhaps not suitable to the Apple set of applications. An existing engine is not in Apple's best interests. They need their own.
Apple doesn't need the virtual processor engine immediately, but they will need it soon -- perhaps within two years. But there is more to consider.
Apple has pushed the Objective-C, C, and C++ languages for its development platform. For the iPhone, iPod, and iPad, it has all but banished other languages and technologies. But C, C++, and Objective-C are poorly suited for virtual processors. Apple will need a new language.
Given Apple's desire for reliable (that is, crash-free) applications, the functional languages may appeal to them. Look for a move from Objective-C to either Haskell or Erlang, or possibly a new language developed at Apple.
It will be a big shift for Apple, and their developers, but in the long run beneficial.
Yet in one aspect, Apple is falling behind.
Apple is using real processor technology, not the virtual processors that Microsoft and Google use. By "virtual processors", I mean the virtual layers that separate the application code from the physical processor. Microsoft has .NET with its virtual processor, its IL code, and its CLR. Google uses Java and Python, and those languages also have the virtual processing layer.
Most popular languages today have a virtual processing layer. Java uses its Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Perl, Python, and Ruby use their virtual processors.
But Apple uses Objective-C, which compiles to the physical processor. In this, Apple is alone.
Compiling to physical processor has the advantage of performance. The virtual processors of the JVM and .NET (and Perl, and Python...) impose a performance cost. A lot of work has been done to reduce that cost, but the cost is still there. Microsoft's use of .NET for its Windows Mobile offerings means higher demands for processor power and higher draw from the battery. An equivalent Apple product can run with less power.
Compiling to a virtual processor also has advantages. The virtual environments can be opened to debuggers and performance monitors, something not possible with a physical processor. Therefore, writing a debugger or a performance monitor in a virtual processor environment is easier and less costly.
The languages which use virtual processors all have the ability for class introspection (or reflection, as some put it). I don't know enough about Objective-C to know if this is possible, but I do know that C and C++ don't have reflection. Reflection makes it easier to create unit tests and perform some type checking on code, which reduces the long-term cost of the application.
The other benefit of virtual processors is freedom from the physical processor, or rather from the processor line. Programs written to the virtual processor can run anywhere, with the virtual processor layer. This is how Java can run anywhere: the byte-code is the same, only the virtual processor changes from physical processor to physical processor.
The advantages of performance are no longer enough to justify a physical processor. Virtual processors have advantages that help developers and reduce the development costs.
Is it possible that Apple is working on a virtual processor of its own? The technology is well within their abilities.
I suspect that Apple would build their own, rather than use any of the existing virtual processors. The two biggies, .NET and Java, are owned by companies not friendly to Apple. The engines for Perl, Python, and Ruby are nice but perhaps not suitable to the Apple set of applications. An existing engine is not in Apple's best interests. They need their own.
Apple doesn't need the virtual processor engine immediately, but they will need it soon -- perhaps within two years. But there is more to consider.
Apple has pushed the Objective-C, C, and C++ languages for its development platform. For the iPhone, iPod, and iPad, it has all but banished other languages and technologies. But C, C++, and Objective-C are poorly suited for virtual processors. Apple will need a new language.
Given Apple's desire for reliable (that is, crash-free) applications, the functional languages may appeal to them. Look for a move from Objective-C to either Haskell or Erlang, or possibly a new language developed at Apple.
It will be a big shift for Apple, and their developers, but in the long run beneficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)