SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Python sits firmly in top place in the newest annual ranking of popular programming languages by IEEE Spectrum.
The ranking and others like it are meant to help developers understand the popularity of languages in a world where no one really knows what programmers are using on their laptops.
IEEE Spectrum has placed Python in first spot since 2017, and last year it was just ahead of C++. The top language is given a score of 100, and all languages with lower scores are scaled in relation to it. C++ last year scored 99.7, followed by Java at 97.5, and C with 96.7.
Today, in the IEEE Spectrum's sixth annual ranking, Python's 100 is a long way ahead of runner-up Java's 96.3 score, while C is in third place with 94.4. C++ has slipped to fourth with 87.5, while in fifth is specialist statistical computing language R with a score of 81.5.
The magazine for engineering members of IEEE, the world's biggest engineering and applied-science organization, attributes Python's popularity to the vast number of specialized libraries it has, especially for developers building artificial-intelligence applications.
[...] They go on to note that Facebook, which was originally built with PHP, launched its alternative to PHP, Hack, in 2014 and since then JavaScript, TypeScript and Python have become the most popular languages for web development.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Pino P on Monday September 16 2019, @12:48PM (7 children)
JavaScript is high on the list because it's the only language that allows the client side of a web application to work without full page reload after every navigation or form submission. Web applications in turn are popular because many smaller shops cannot afford the cost of getting a native application ported to five or more client platforms,* approved for those platforms that require approval by the platform owner, and approved by the IT departments of the end users.
* Windows, macOS, X11/Linux, iOS, Android
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @02:56PM (5 children)
And maintained on five different platforms. There is much more cost than simply initial development. Especially for a very large code base. But hipsters are never concerned about longevity of code. Or maintainability. Or even correctness if it can be swept under the rug to deal with in version 2.0.
I do see WebAssembly as a possible replacement for JavaScript. Then multiple languages could be compiled to a common widely deployed "runtime" playback user interface.
Web Applications have more advantages than just one code base that works everywhere. But that one alone is sufficient reason to develop Web Apps rather than native apps. Other advantages include:
* Zero Maintenance -- you don't need to download "updates" to end user systems
* Zero Install -- While a native app could be zero maintenance if it does self updates, it still requires initial installation, on each of however many thousands of PCs exist within your organization
* All support issues start to be about the application problem domain rather than technology problems. Instead of support calls about "Jane Can't Print", or "Bob's application mysterious crashes when he clicks this certain button, but none of the other PCs do this"; you get support calls more like "Jane has a question about how to set up this particular payroll situation."
Combined with the cross platform-ness, all of these advantages make web applications an obvious choice.
This in turn gradually leads to devices like Chromebooks becoming attractive for certain use cases.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday September 16 2019, @04:02PM (4 children)
You still need JavaScript to act as a proxy between the WebAssembly and the DOM. A web application that relies on WebAssembly won't load on Internet Explorer for Windows 7 and Windows 8.1, Safari and Safari wrappers for iOS before 11, and UC Browser.
Not quite all. Sometimes you get "this web platform feature is broken or missing in Safari for macOS, browsers for iOS, or IE for Windows 7 and 8.1." Sometimes it's "this application breaks when the Internet connection drops." And sometimes it's the requirement for each user of a self-hosted web application to purchase a domain name in order for the server to be able to grab its HTTPS certificate from Let's Encrypt.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @04:53PM (3 children)
Yes, JavaScript glue still needed.
Thank
googlenessgoodness, IE is effectively dead. Even Edge will soon be a wrapper around Chrome / Webkit.Windows 7 and 8.1 are capable of running real web browsers with big boy pants. I suspect older iOS can also run standards compliant browsers. But in any case, some people, like myself, write software that is not used by the general public, but by people working in an organization getting business done. Those customers, who are organizations, are able to control and specify what browsers, OSes, PCs, etc that their employees use -- since they generally purchase them.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday September 16 2019, @05:41PM (1 child)
Provided that corporate IT allows installation thereof.
Apple's App Store Review Guidelines require all* web browsers on iOS and iPadOS to wrap the system WebKit library. This means all other web browsers for iOS and iPadOS have the same level of web standards support as Safari for that version of iOS and iPadOS, no more, no less.
And many of these organizations have very conservative IT departments that don't want anything but IE installed on corporate workstations. They prefer to pay web application operators to maintain support for IE rather than pay to manage Chrome on their own workstations. This will diminish in January 2023 once Windows 8.1 leaves extended support.
* I am aware of one exception: Opera Mini skirts the Guidelines by rendering web pages on a proxy server and sending the rendered page in a simplified form to the device. But people who choose Opera Mini probably do so because they don't need to run script-driven web applications but only view static or form-driven websites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @06:23PM
The IT departments serve the needs of the corporation, not the other way around. Or heads need to roll.
If the corporation is using an app that requires, let's say, FireFox, then it is IT's job to make that happen, or give the higher ups advice on why this is a bad idea, bad for business, not cost effective, or other very good reasons why.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:32AM
So right after your post singing the praises of "one code base that works everywhere" you are now singing the praises of corporate customers that can force users to all run the same browser so that your web stuff works for real...
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Monday September 16 2019, @05:36PM
That *used* to be the case. WebAssembly and cross-compilation to Javascript has freed us from that limitation.