Ever since development languages were invented we have sought ways of making the development of software easier. We have attempted to do this by abstracting the level at which the developer is employed to create code and created languages and tools which are more 'natural English' in terms of human interaction. However, on the other hand we have also added to this extra levels of complexity with changing hardware, communications protocols, multi-tier server deployment, runtimes, middleware, messaging technology and language politics and I haven’t even bothered to discuss the internet.
Regarding language politics, read anywhere on the internet about the great .NET or J2EE debate or perhaps commercial languages versus open source and you will quickly realise that there is significant inroads to be made with IT vendors around the world. You will see an IT community that is split pretty much down the middle, although if you want my humble opinion as it currently stands, I believe that we will once again see a shift towards packaged and guaranteed software over that of open source and Microsoft will eventually win the development language tools war.
This three part article aims to discuss the evolution (not revolution) of software development languages with particular focus on third and fourth generation languages, a debate on the pro’s and con’s of these approaches and then conclude with a few comments regarding some of the repeating fads as I see it today.
It wasn’t that long ago that the typical software developer would have been aged between 35 and 60, male, probably balding (So that’s me covered), university educated and employed within those same hallowed institutional walls since passing his exams, quite ironically with his non IT related degree. He would have been wearing white coats in the office, have bottle bottomed glasses, a pocket full of pens and answered to the name of geek or dork.
Well this is how Hollywood and the urban stereotype would have it.
A bit harsh if you ask me but to be fair, they would have been fascinated by punch cards, saw value in paper tape with holes in it and probably would have missed any fads of the times with regard to musical revolution. There certainly would have been very few ordinary people and the numbers of women specialising in this field, countable on the one hand.
Now, time has moved on, as has technology and you now can’t tell an IT guy apart from your ordinary office worker. It actually amazes me that although we are making the art of software development easier, the extra layers of complexity should in theory have amounted to a increase in the numbers of geeky looking guys, so much so that if lined up ten abreast a communist regime would have been proud to show off their IT military might with these millions marching in city squares across the world. But this hasn’t happened, IT in general is now a mainstream activity and the working environments are certainly more aligned to that of a typical office environment. With this mass adoption of IT skills in the work place I also believe that IT guys are now considered a corporate commodity, where as 15 years ago the pay would have been relatively higher, how times are changing.
So we have worked hard to improve the scope and productivity of the average software developer. We have migrated from the punch card era to having keyboards, mice, laser pens and voice recognition input devices. We have languages that have evolved to make them more readable and understood by a human. The days of everyone programming in assembler or other low-level machine/processor level code began to change with the introduction of the 3GL languages of the day. COBOL, Fortran, RPG and Basic would be good examples here. I am sure that at that time some people would have embraced the new paradigm as much as developers have embraced Java or are now embracing Flex/Actionscript, Ruby on rails or C# as the perfect way forward. There would also have been the doubters and I guess the split would have been no different to many of the impasses that we see reported online and in periodicals every.
Still, software engineering took time.
We are improving and continue to improve 3GL languages to this very day. We now have a whole hard drive full of productivity features embedded within our integrated development environments (IDE). Features like wizards, auto code completion, and syntax auto-correction were non-existent back then, let alone globally accepted standards and minimum requirements.
Regarding language politics, read anywhere on the internet about the great .NET or J2EE debate or perhaps commercial languages versus open source and you will quickly realise that there is significant inroads to be made with IT vendors around the world. You will see an IT community that is split pretty much down the middle, although if you want my humble opinion as it currently stands, I believe that we will once again see a shift towards packaged and guaranteed software over that of open source and Microsoft will eventually win the development language tools war.
This three part article aims to discuss the evolution (not revolution) of software development languages with particular focus on third and fourth generation languages, a debate on the pro’s and con’s of these approaches and then conclude with a few comments regarding some of the repeating fads as I see it today.
It wasn’t that long ago that the typical software developer would have been aged between 35 and 60, male, probably balding (So that’s me covered), university educated and employed within those same hallowed institutional walls since passing his exams, quite ironically with his non IT related degree. He would have been wearing white coats in the office, have bottle bottomed glasses, a pocket full of pens and answered to the name of geek or dork.
Well this is how Hollywood and the urban stereotype would have it.
A bit harsh if you ask me but to be fair, they would have been fascinated by punch cards, saw value in paper tape with holes in it and probably would have missed any fads of the times with regard to musical revolution. There certainly would have been very few ordinary people and the numbers of women specialising in this field, countable on the one hand.
Now, time has moved on, as has technology and you now can’t tell an IT guy apart from your ordinary office worker. It actually amazes me that although we are making the art of software development easier, the extra layers of complexity should in theory have amounted to a increase in the numbers of geeky looking guys, so much so that if lined up ten abreast a communist regime would have been proud to show off their IT military might with these millions marching in city squares across the world. But this hasn’t happened, IT in general is now a mainstream activity and the working environments are certainly more aligned to that of a typical office environment. With this mass adoption of IT skills in the work place I also believe that IT guys are now considered a corporate commodity, where as 15 years ago the pay would have been relatively higher, how times are changing.
So we have worked hard to improve the scope and productivity of the average software developer. We have migrated from the punch card era to having keyboards, mice, laser pens and voice recognition input devices. We have languages that have evolved to make them more readable and understood by a human. The days of everyone programming in assembler or other low-level machine/processor level code began to change with the introduction of the 3GL languages of the day. COBOL, Fortran, RPG and Basic would be good examples here. I am sure that at that time some people would have embraced the new paradigm as much as developers have embraced Java or are now embracing Flex/Actionscript, Ruby on rails or C# as the perfect way forward. There would also have been the doubters and I guess the split would have been no different to many of the impasses that we see reported online and in periodicals every.
Still, software engineering took time.
We are improving and continue to improve 3GL languages to this very day. We now have a whole hard drive full of productivity features embedded within our integrated development environments (IDE). Features like wizards, auto code completion, and syntax auto-correction were non-existent back then, let alone globally accepted standards and minimum requirements.
I would say that any developer working 20 years ago would never have thought that freeware/open source (delete as appropriate) products like Openoffice or Eclipse would be a reality. They could have conceived that software was given away as a loss leader for professional services, but, a massive corporation like IBM giving away a product that it spent and to this day still spends millions of dollars on would have been considered insane. But this is the state of play today.
So when many thought that we had gone as far as we could with the evolution of the 3GL language we once again raised the bar with the next great technology advancement. This time we evolved to 4GL languages. These are otherwise known as code generators, CASE (Computer Aided System Engineering) tools or ARAD (Architected Rapid Application Development). This was hailed as the end of the expensive IT developer, the marketing expressed that the typical end user could now get involved in the development of the IT systems and return the ownership and power of your systems back to the business, and more importantly drive it out of the hands of that lowly IT department.
The same IT department that through these times was still considered a cost overhead rather than a business opportunity enabler. Many of you may remember the days when the IT function reported to the financial controller. I believe that most IT people are artists who can’t draw and we use the creative parts of our brain to build beautiful code and systems. To think that you’d stifle (some may still continue to do) this creativity with the frigidity of accountant mentality still frightens me. Imagine the marketing or sales director reporting to that same accountant? Actually I can, ouch!!!!!!!
With the marketing hype, 3GL project overruns and increasingly tight deliverables the 4GL era was born and in my view this has created some of the more interesting debates in IT circles. The simple reason being that I would anticipate that for each platform/system available there would be numerous languages that are either compatible (Java and the JVM) or targeted (Compiled) that are considered the language of choice, each with their own hardcore developer following. There will also, more than likely, be a 4GL that targets that platform and I bet my left one that a maximum of 10% of the users of the platform use a 4GL over that of the 3GL.
Are these 10% the visionaries?
Well I guess that depends on the tools of choice, but no one denounces the 10% of personal computer users that use the Apple Mac and all its gizmos.
You also have to consider that many of these 4GL languages evolved during a time of single platform computing. i.e. There would be a 4GL that would target the complete application development cycle. The tools were capable of constructing everything from the database, screen and reports though to catering for the applications menus. I have had experience developing in both 3GL and 4GL languages and I believe that I am well placed to comment accurately about both approaches. So as IT has evolved so have many of these 4GL tools.
The question is do you choose a 3GL or a 4GL?
This is still a fiercely debated argument online or at technology conferences just as much as the debate around the merits of client/server technology versus thin client or betamax v VHS (lol). With the emergence of more and more technologies and web 2.0 we are again beginning to witness the thin/rich client gloves come off. Which for me is quite ironic as web thin client was the reason for killing off the high deployment cost of client/server systems which itself was created to offset performance issues of software systems and distribute the processing load.
That said, cost is now measured in bandwidth and reach rather than hardware and employees required to support the system.
I personally believe that these architecture choices should be down to the type of application you’re creating and its accessibility and user requirements. Also, this is the same thinking behind why you would choose a given development tool and at which level of abstraction you wish to develop the application. Another interesting topic involved with the 3GL v 4GL debate is that many of these tools are capable of producing code for multiple platforms i.e. IBM Power System (RPG), Windows (C of one variant or another) as well as Java which is capable of being deployed on multiple platforms.
Java claims a write it once, deploy it many times approach. I would say that it should be rephrased as write it once and the tune it for each platform, JVM or application server of your choice. Now I make no bones that I am an advocate of the 4GL (especially CA Plex or CA 2e) over the 3GL for the applications that I have written over the years. Most 4GLs cater for the RDBMS systems and are best suited for these types of environments i.e. banking systems etc. Other 4GLs or tools for writing computer games are in existence and once again these are designed to protect the developer from the underlying complexities of the code. With these engines you do not need to understand the ins and outs of DirectX or DirectDraw API’s or the language that is generated. But your decision to use one of these tools must be twofold.
1. It must be appropriate for the type of application you are creating.
2. Once you have chosen the 4GL you must stick to it and use it properly.
There are many tools out there that claim that they can generate code into multiple languages and these tools in my opinion are great for ISV’s that need to have an offering across multiple platforms to negate the hard sell of one technology over another. After all, shouldn’t your marketing and sales teams be selling the values and merits of your software’s function and feature set rather than justifying your company’s technology decisions
Part II will discuss the many pro’s and con’s of the 3GL and 4GL languages and tools.
So when many thought that we had gone as far as we could with the evolution of the 3GL language we once again raised the bar with the next great technology advancement. This time we evolved to 4GL languages. These are otherwise known as code generators, CASE (Computer Aided System Engineering) tools or ARAD (Architected Rapid Application Development). This was hailed as the end of the expensive IT developer, the marketing expressed that the typical end user could now get involved in the development of the IT systems and return the ownership and power of your systems back to the business, and more importantly drive it out of the hands of that lowly IT department.
The same IT department that through these times was still considered a cost overhead rather than a business opportunity enabler. Many of you may remember the days when the IT function reported to the financial controller. I believe that most IT people are artists who can’t draw and we use the creative parts of our brain to build beautiful code and systems. To think that you’d stifle (some may still continue to do) this creativity with the frigidity of accountant mentality still frightens me. Imagine the marketing or sales director reporting to that same accountant? Actually I can, ouch!!!!!!!
With the marketing hype, 3GL project overruns and increasingly tight deliverables the 4GL era was born and in my view this has created some of the more interesting debates in IT circles. The simple reason being that I would anticipate that for each platform/system available there would be numerous languages that are either compatible (Java and the JVM) or targeted (Compiled) that are considered the language of choice, each with their own hardcore developer following. There will also, more than likely, be a 4GL that targets that platform and I bet my left one that a maximum of 10% of the users of the platform use a 4GL over that of the 3GL.
Are these 10% the visionaries?
Well I guess that depends on the tools of choice, but no one denounces the 10% of personal computer users that use the Apple Mac and all its gizmos.
You also have to consider that many of these 4GL languages evolved during a time of single platform computing. i.e. There would be a 4GL that would target the complete application development cycle. The tools were capable of constructing everything from the database, screen and reports though to catering for the applications menus. I have had experience developing in both 3GL and 4GL languages and I believe that I am well placed to comment accurately about both approaches. So as IT has evolved so have many of these 4GL tools.
The question is do you choose a 3GL or a 4GL?
This is still a fiercely debated argument online or at technology conferences just as much as the debate around the merits of client/server technology versus thin client or betamax v VHS (lol). With the emergence of more and more technologies and web 2.0 we are again beginning to witness the thin/rich client gloves come off. Which for me is quite ironic as web thin client was the reason for killing off the high deployment cost of client/server systems which itself was created to offset performance issues of software systems and distribute the processing load.
That said, cost is now measured in bandwidth and reach rather than hardware and employees required to support the system.
I personally believe that these architecture choices should be down to the type of application you’re creating and its accessibility and user requirements. Also, this is the same thinking behind why you would choose a given development tool and at which level of abstraction you wish to develop the application. Another interesting topic involved with the 3GL v 4GL debate is that many of these tools are capable of producing code for multiple platforms i.e. IBM Power System (RPG), Windows (C of one variant or another) as well as Java which is capable of being deployed on multiple platforms.
Java claims a write it once, deploy it many times approach. I would say that it should be rephrased as write it once and the tune it for each platform, JVM or application server of your choice. Now I make no bones that I am an advocate of the 4GL (especially CA Plex or CA 2e) over the 3GL for the applications that I have written over the years. Most 4GLs cater for the RDBMS systems and are best suited for these types of environments i.e. banking systems etc. Other 4GLs or tools for writing computer games are in existence and once again these are designed to protect the developer from the underlying complexities of the code. With these engines you do not need to understand the ins and outs of DirectX or DirectDraw API’s or the language that is generated. But your decision to use one of these tools must be twofold.
1. It must be appropriate for the type of application you are creating.
2. Once you have chosen the 4GL you must stick to it and use it properly.
There are many tools out there that claim that they can generate code into multiple languages and these tools in my opinion are great for ISV’s that need to have an offering across multiple platforms to negate the hard sell of one technology over another. After all, shouldn’t your marketing and sales teams be selling the values and merits of your software’s function and feature set rather than justifying your company’s technology decisions
Part II will discuss the many pro’s and con’s of the 3GL and 4GL languages and tools.
I have three points of contention with your views.
ReplyDelete1) "Microsoft will eventually win the development language tools war."
On what basis do you conclude this? After all, most now agree that between 1936 and 1944, Hitler's Germany had an unbeatable military machine. However, he failed to capitalise on that power. Microsoft have demonstrated this trait numerous times already.
2) "no one denounces the 10% of personal computer users that use the Apple Mac and all its gizmos."
As a recent "switcher" myself (16 months) I can tell you there are certainly many good reasons for going down this path. The reason many don't is because they don't know any better. This is exactly the same reasoning that keeps Xtra well endowed with customers and Oracle too. The trouble here is that the most vocal proponents of a "better" way (or at least different) are zealots. Zealots do not make good marketers. The person who convinced me to switch to a Mac had (a) had made the switch himself recently and (b) spoke to me in terms of real-world differences rather than lofty stereotypes.
3) "Java claims a write it once, deploy it many times approach. I would say that it should be rephrased as write it once and the tune it for each platform, JVM or application server of your choice."
I believe there is a general misconception in play here. The *model* of Java is precisely write once, run anywhere. The issue of tuning comes about due to a combination of incomplete JVM implementations and target platform constraints. The latter often driving the former. The most common criticism I have seen of Java (and was also applied, before v3, to Firefox) is that it "doesn't look like all the other applications". This, I see as short-sighted and effectively the same as the arguments over the Mac simply being "prettier" than the PC and having no real substance.
In all three cases the fundamental issue is that we are dealing with people who do not remotely understand the ramifications of any solution to any problem. No-one ever will. Therefore, there will be the lazy, the crazy and the thoughtful - duking it out for all time.
I am reminded of a quote (for which I cannot recall the attribution): "What you're doing is right, but is it the right thing to do?"