fun new languages to learn

phrakture · 2005-03-03 17:31:38

hmm in another thread, incinerator pointed out "if you want feature X, try language Y" and it got me thinking...

I think it's time for me to fully learn a good multi-purpose language... now I can understand and write some stuff in python and ruby... but I never wrote anything big

So I put this question out there:
What's a good multi-purpose language as far as features, performance, and usage in the job-market?

cbozic · 2005-03-03 17:42:03

java
-tons of available libraries for stuff you don't want to write
-it's easy to learn
-it's used in plenty of commercial environments
-it's marketable

Dusty · 2005-03-03 18:03:44

Yeah, Java will get you a job, and it can be used for practically anything. The only thing its not really good at is certain string processing and scripting tasks, BUT it has even made huge inroads there since java 1.3. Well, its not that great for *some* realtime applications either.

But if you like C++ you'll probably hate Java. :-P I know it works the other way around at any rate. :-D

Java threading is dead simple too, since that's what came up in the other thread.

Dusty

z4ziggy · 2005-03-03 18:20:37

as much as i dislike it, java is the most multi-purpose coding env i know. also, most robust. u can do almost anything with it, and still use platform independed functionality. and since u using c++ anyway, u wont care of its poor performance anyhow...

Mr Green · 2005-03-03 18:52:25

lua

sarah31 · 2005-03-03 18:54:20

phrakture wrote:

So I put this question out there:
What's a good multi-purpose language as far as features, performance, and usage in the job-market?

English is pretty feature rich, performs well and is widely used in the job market.

cmp · 2005-03-03 19:30:59

I would recomend Eiffel, if you want to try something new. It's very easy and has some nice feature. But It will certainly get you no job in the industry. Also there is a lack of libraries, but the C-Interface mechanism is pretty well written (at least in SmartEiffel).
If you find a good archpackage, which could be hard, because of it's non standard installation procedure, I would definitely give a try.

dadexter · 2005-03-03 19:47:23

how about perl? it's present in the job market, multi=purpose (with the proper modules)... but I personally don't like it

rose · 2005-03-03 20:08:44

brainfuck ( http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/ )
What a cool name!

skoal · 2005-03-03 20:12:59

dadexter wrote:

how about perl? it's present in the job market, multi=purpose (with the proper modules)...[...]

Perl is a pearl. All of the available plugin modules give you every possible functionality ever conceived by mankind.

In addition, Sarah31 is correct. English is efficient, feature-rich, and widely used in the job market. Furthermore, English already has several plugin modules available, much like perl, to help you cope with various world markets...

spanglish.em
redneck.em
kingsenglish.em
ebonics.em

and even snoopdogg.em

dadexter · 2005-03-03 20:18:05

One day, maybe I'll even try var'aq

http://www.geocities.com/connorbd/varaq/

kill · 2005-03-03 20:40:39

I've always thought lisp was an interesting language to program in.

dadexter · 2005-03-03 20:49:57

When I hear about a new language, one of the first things I do is take a look at:

http://www2.latech.edu/~acm/HelloWorld.shtml

Some languages have a syntax guaranteed to scare children and elderly persons.

phrakture · 2005-03-03 21:10:44

Dusty wrote:

But if you like C++ you'll probably hate Java. :-P I know it works the other way around at any rate. :-D

you are correct. Though I do professional programming in C# right now, I'm tired of the enforced verbosity of the languages... who needs a class named "DataGridItemEventArgs", sheesh

C++ is my first love, though I don't like it as a full OO language... C++ works best in "mixed-mode" where the programming consists of procedural code using objects to aid in common tasks...

C comes in at a close second, though I don't like programming in C mainly for asthetic reasons... pointer arithmetic is ugly, all these PREFIXED_functions_for_pseudo_oo() are not pretty either.... not being able to declare variables mid-function (C89 only) causes clutter...

soniX · 2005-03-03 21:35:21

I have to agree with the first (serious) posts here that Java is the way to go.
works great for everything from writing small apps for your mobile phone(j2me), to large scale stuff for the enterprise marked(j2ee). the standard libs in j2se should cover most of what you need from gui to database, sockets and xml. And if you want even more features (as we all do) there is as Dusty pointed out, lots of extra libs available, many with unrestrictive licences.
Through your C++ experience you should be familiar with the syntax, and OO programming, so it should be a pretty smooth switch.

dp · 2005-03-03 22:41:58

fortran :-X

phrakture · 2005-03-03 23:23:04

dp wrote:

fortran :-X

heh, did it for 2.5 years... it actually wasn't bad, but the inability to dynamically allocate memory was a bummer

sarah31 · 2005-03-04 00:51:39

I dunno. I think perl is ugly. It is feature rich, etc. But so many people just write once and never bother to look over and clean up what they have coded. Perl's Makefiles are messing and not very standard. So many bits so much clutter.

Java .... I just can't stand it. It is very slow, bulky, opens too many processes and manages them like crap. Etc.

While both are very useful I really dislike both with a passion. If someone could write something like perl or java but more modern and standarized i would be happy.

Dusty · 2005-03-04 16:45:04

sarah31 wrote:

While both are very useful I really dislike both with a passion. If someone could write something like perl or java but more modern and standarized i would be happy.

Python, Ruby, Groovy, PHP....

Has anybody noticed that pretty much all the new programming languages are interpreted? AFAIK, Java is the only one that's compiled to bytecode, and hardly anything since C and C++ are compiled to machine code. I know I'm missing some, but these are the popular ones. (BTW: what does C# do?)

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-03-04 16:56:39

Dusty wrote:

(BTW: what does C# do?)

compiled to IL (Intermediate Language) - think bytecode

the only interesting thing is that all .NET languages compile to IL, so they're binary compatable... which is kinda cool

phrakture · 2005-03-04 17:01:34

Dusty wrote:

Has anybody noticed that pretty much all the new programming languages are interpreted? AFAIK, Java is the only one that's compiled to bytecode, and hardly anything since C and C++ are compiled to machine code.

I noticed that as well - and it could mean a few things:
a) C/C++ "won", so-to-speak... they came out and people couldn't think of a way to improve on it
b) People miss slow computers, so slather layers and layers of interpreters and virtual machines on top of each other to remind them of their Amigas [BTW, if someone can make a python interpreter in java so I can do "java PythonInterp.jar something.py", I would laugh so hard]
c) Machine level inconsistancies are too annoying to deal with, so virtual machines make that sort of thing easier to deal with

cmp · 2005-03-04 18:33:55

@b you havn't thouhgt about embedding python into a java application, have you?
btw.: I just remember another cool feature of eiffel it can be compiled to c/.net bytecode/java bytecode

Dusty · 2005-03-04 19:43:07

phrakture wrote:

[BTW, if someone can make a python interpreter in java so I can do "java PythonInterp.jar something.py", I would laugh so hard]

Something like this?:

http://www.jython.org/

phrakture · 2005-03-04 20:07:13

ahahahahahahaha

why?
why?
why?

ok, now find me ummmm a ruby interp written in python, then a vim script interp written in ruby and we'll chain them

# jython interp_ruby.py interp_vim.rb helloworld.vim

# time jython interp_ruby.py interp_vim.rb helloworld.vim
time: a jillion

Dusty · 2005-03-04 20:35:11

How's this?:

http://www.goto.info.waseda.ac.jp/~fuku … hon-e.html

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-03 17:31:38

fun new languages to learn

#2 2005-03-03 17:42:03

Re: fun new languages to learn

#3 2005-03-03 18:03:44

Re: fun new languages to learn

#4 2005-03-03 18:20:37

Re: fun new languages to learn

#5 2005-03-03 18:52:25

Re: fun new languages to learn

#6 2005-03-03 18:54:20

Re: fun new languages to learn

#7 2005-03-03 19:30:59

Re: fun new languages to learn

#8 2005-03-03 19:47:23

Re: fun new languages to learn

#9 2005-03-03 20:08:44

Re: fun new languages to learn

#10 2005-03-03 20:12:59

Re: fun new languages to learn

#11 2005-03-03 20:18:05

Re: fun new languages to learn

#12 2005-03-03 20:40:39

Re: fun new languages to learn

#13 2005-03-03 20:49:57

Re: fun new languages to learn

#14 2005-03-03 21:10:44

Re: fun new languages to learn

#15 2005-03-03 21:35:21

Re: fun new languages to learn

#16 2005-03-03 22:41:58

Re: fun new languages to learn

#17 2005-03-03 23:23:04

Re: fun new languages to learn

#18 2005-03-04 00:51:39

Re: fun new languages to learn

#19 2005-03-04 16:45:04

Re: fun new languages to learn

#20 2005-03-04 16:56:39

Re: fun new languages to learn

#21 2005-03-04 17:01:34

Re: fun new languages to learn

#22 2005-03-04 18:33:55

Re: fun new languages to learn

#23 2005-03-04 19:43:07

Re: fun new languages to learn

#24 2005-03-04 20:07:13

Re: fun new languages to learn

#25 2005-03-04 20:35:11

Re: fun new languages to learn

Board footer