Gregory's ServerI sort of wonder, have programming languages always been "platforms" hungry for market capture, or is that a relatively new thing.
|
5 comments
 @ffsanton As someone else mentioned in the thread, I think Java was a precursor to language as a platform, where funding was decoupled from the products. I haven't had a chance of learning about the story of java until now, just reading about it atm- @neauoire in the 90s there were lots of companies that made money selling language IDEs (Think, CodeWarrior, VisualAge, Borland, etc) or even just distributions of open source languages (ActiveState). These were often effectively their own languages (eg I used a THINK C that was a non-standard C++ subset). I see Java as the thing that shifted commercial development towards an open/free “platform” and killed tooling as a viable business. Secondarily, the rise of Linux vs commercial UNIX. @neauoire @CodingItWrong I came up when the big debate (in non-scientific software) was whether C could supplant assembly language for serious work. That sort of felt like a platform play, going for market share, though more driven by programmer enthusiasm and organizations eager to avoid vendor lock-in. |
@neauoire I am guessing it really is a new thing. Earliest example I can think of is Java. Sun Microsystems marketed it relentlessly, and it worked for a while.
On the other hand, older languages like C, C++, Common Lisp, and Scheme all went through decades-long standardization processes because several commercially viable implementation already existed and it was beneficial for the corporate stewards of these implementations not to have end-users be locked-in to their competitors.
I strongly prefer using older languages with long-drawn, consensus-based, standardized specifications.
@neauoire I am guessing it really is a new thing. Earliest example I can think of is Java. Sun Microsystems marketed it relentlessly, and it worked for a while.
On the other hand, older languages like C, C++, Common Lisp, and Scheme all went through decades-long standardization processes because several commercially viable implementation already existed and it was beneficial for the corporate stewards of these implementations not to have end-users be locked-in to their competitors.