WebMink
Simon Phipps's personal commentary

Language Standards a Smoke-screen? [WebTech]

I'm quoted by Gavin Clark of Computerwire in his item (syndicated by The Register) about the standardisation of Microsoft's C# programming language and their moves to make their C++ compiler catch up with the standards a little. My remarks there are a little truncated and consequently unclear, so I'd like to elaborate a little.

My observation was that programmers don't typically use languages to create software. They use programming languages to weave together library calls to create software. Consequently, a programmer's marketable expertise is actually in their skill with the libraries they use to create software - the programming language with which they do so is relatively unimportant. Programmers seeking to build with the Java class libraries can use the Java language, or Jython, or NetRexx, or indeed any of the 160 systems that target the Java virtual machine. Programmers using the UNIX libraries have a similar choice; programmers using Microsoft's MFC libraries a smaller set of choices; those using Microsoft's new .NET framework a similarly small set. Of course, in typical form projecting weaknesses and engaging in doubletalk, the small range of choice is portrayed as a large one...

So what does language standardisation buy us? Well, it means that we will have a basic familiarity with the programming languages we find variously implemented. But beyond that, I would suggest it doesn't buy us much. What brings value is library stability. The Java environment achieves this by the oversight of a very good standards body, the Java Community Process. UNIX achieves it via the Open Group. But what about Microsoft? Their libraries come with no promise of stability as no-one but them gets a vote. Indeed, their switch from MFC to .NET Framework is probably the reason for their new-found interest in language standards. Talking about 'language choice' and 'language standards' is all fine rhetoric, but what programmers really need is library stability. Perhaps it's embarrassment over that which is creating the new language fervour in Redmond, to blow a smoke-screen over the retraining VB and C++ programmers are facing?

posted at 9:11 PM (UK) | |