5.5. A Few Potential Suitors
Now th
at you've seen what the industry has to offer, let's take a quick review of
some programming languages and identify some possible candidates. You'll see a
more comprehensive treatment of the contenders in Chapter 9
. If you buy what I've
been selling so far, you understand that for certain jobs, other languages may be
better suited. I encourage you to try one of these languages every month or so.
If you've not been exposed to languages outside of C++, Basic, and Java, I've got
to warn you that the experience can be unsettling. You'll be surprised at how much
of your knowledge commutes, and how quickly you can grasp the essence that
makes a given language so productive. You'll also be surprised at the fury that you
can generate around the office just by peeking at alternativesyou may want to leave
the nice car in the driveway and take the old Family Truckster to work for a while.

5.5.1. Perl
Perl is a scripting language, with a quirky syntax and a turbulent past. Here's a
quick example that prints "Hi, Bruce":
my $name = "Bruce";
print "Hi, ", $x, "\n";
5.5.1.1. What I like
If raw productivity is your goal, perhaps Perl is a possible answer. It's dynamically
typed, is highly productive, and has a small community established. It also has a
fanatical following.
5.5.1.2. What I don't like
Perl does have a big downside. To this point, Perl's got a reputation of a write-only
language: with its cryptic syntax, you can easily produce code that's very difficult


The biggest hurdle for Python is its lack of compelling reasons to move away from
Java. Python really needs a killer app. In the end, we've already formed our
opinions. Python will be a moderately successful dynamic language, on the order
of Smalltalk.
5.5.3. Ruby
Ruby is an object-oriented language created in the mid-1990s in Japan. The Ruby
community grew steadily, and the language is now emerging beyond Japan. It's
gained popularity in the United States only in the last couple of years.
5.5.3.1. What I like
Ruby has a beautiful syntax. It reads like English, and it miraculously stays out of
your way. It's highly dynamic, and the educated core of the Ruby community
works hard to produce clean, simple APIs. Ruby has strong web frameworks, and
good support for XML and web services. Ruby has a couple of popular emerging
frameworks, like Ruby on Rails. The web and XML frameworks are innovative
and simple. The portable interpreter is fast, and it has the necessary plug-
ins for the
Apache web server. The standalone web interpreter, called Webrick, has several
high-prof
ile applications running on it. Most importantly, Ruby may have the killer
app in Rails, which I'll discuss in detail in Chapter 7. This year will have four new
Rails books and a strong publisher in the Pragmatic Bookshelf. Ruby doesn't have
any political baggage that would turn away a potential commercial adopter. It's
fairly mature.
5.5.3.2. What I don't like
In Japan, Ruby has good commercial financial backing and support. Outside of
Japan, Ruby has an embarrassing lack of commercial backing. Its relatively small
community shows in the dearth of niche frameworks. The JVM support is
immature (although it is admittedly improving rapidly). Early attempts to produce
a version of Ruby running on the JVM had a few false starts. Still, the JRuby

architecture. As a Java programmer, you've probably already seen JSP pages that
try to do too much. They're quick to write, but the solution bogs down in a hurry.
5.5.5. C# and Visual Basic
C# is effectively a Java clone. It has many of the same benefits and drawbacks.
Visual Basic on the .NET environment seems to be losing momentum, because the
older Visual Basic developers don't seem to have the same fervor for VB.NET.
Microsoft has other languages as well. In the end, Microsoft will always have a
core set of developers. That's effectively a closed ecosystem, though. It's limited by
the success of the Windows platform, which is adopted broadly on the client, but
decidedly less so on the server side. I'm not predicting success or failure; I just
think that Microsoft languages depend on the success or failure of Microsoft
platforms as a whole, rather than on the strengths or weaknesses of any given
language in it.
5.5.6. Smalltalk
Invented in the early 1970s, Smalltalk is a well-established, hard-luck object-
oriented language. Many see Smalltalk as the first object-oriented language, but it
never really caught on commercially, despite some attempts as late as 1995 by
IBM. It's hugely productive, slightly awkward, and quirky to the extreme. There is
a vibrant, but small, Smalltalk community. Most of it is centered on a highly
productive, continuation-
based application development framework called Seaside,
which we'll discuss in Chapter 8.
5.5.6.1. What I like
Smalltalk has a clean object model, incredible expressive power, and an intelligent
design and community. It's got some solid free implementations, and a potential
catalyst in Seaside. Glenn Vanderburg is fond of saying that all things will
probably return to Smalltalk, but they won't be called Smalltalk anymore. When
you see the influence of Smalltalk on languages like Ruby, that idea makes sense.
5.5.6.2. What I don't like
Smalltalk is not seen as a credible alternative. It just wasn't ever approachable