Several months back, there was somewhat of an uproar in the Ruby and Ruby on Rails communities when it was revealed that after two years of effort, the CD Baby Web site was abandoning their Ruby on Rails rewrite. The CD Baby site was reimplemented in mere months after returning to the use of PHP. This past week, I have been working with another company that is in a very similar situation.
Users of of dynamic languages such as Python, Perl and PHP, are often faced with the additional task of ensuring that type-related errors do not occur in their programs at runtime. Some authors [1, 2] claim that this can be done effectively by the use of extensive automated unit tests. However, practice has shown this to just not be the case.
A few days back a colleague forwarded me a link to an article entitled Attacking PHP. It goes through a list of the problems associated with PHP. And based on my past experiences dealing with PHP in corporate environments, the analysis in that article is spot on.
In short, PHP is just not a suitable language for serious Web application development. I’ve seen it used for a wide variety of Web apps at numerous companies, but the results have always been negative.
When you mention the Ada programming language to most developers, they tend to think of embedded software development, typically in mission-critical environments such as aircraft and electric power plant control systems. But we shouldn’t think that such environments are the only place where Ada can be of use. For the past several weeks, I have been working with a shipping company that makes extensive use of Ada for their in-house software.
A few weeks back, at the end of December, FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 was released. FreeBSD 7 will no doubt prove to be quite revolutionary. For one thing, this will be the first major FreeBSD release in a number of years. FreeBSD 6.0 was released in November of 2005, so there has been quite some time for the development of FreeBSD 7 to take place.
Earlier this week I had a very surprising and unexpected Haskell encounter! It started when a fairly large furniture shop in the area called me in to do some work on some of their intranet software.
They wanted some functionality added to their existing Web-based purchasing system. They’d mentioned that it was CGI-based, so I was thinking it was comprised of Perl or Python scripts. However, I was quite wrong! After getting access to the source code of their CGI scripts, I noticed immediately that they were all written in Haskell.
Scott Rosenberg recently wrote about how it appears to take an AJAX-based Web application about five years to mature. The examples he gives include the new Yahoo! Mail interface, as well as the new Bloglines design. But I don’t think he’s looking far enough into the situation.
We have all no doubt heard by now of SCO Group Inc. filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This news made me think back to what might be considered the “Golden Age” of SCO. Now, I’m talking of the company formerly known as Santa Cruz Operation, not today’s SCO Group. Nevertheless, much of the same software is involved, and that is where my focus will be.
Today I was reading about the “Reduced Functionality” capability of Windows Vista. According to that article, Microsoft has now enabled this capability, which renders a “nongenuine” copy of Windows essentially unusable.
Frankly, I just can’t see why anybody would want to use Windows Vista. I’m sure the questionable nature of this sort of functionality is quite obvious to most. And it’s also pretty obvious how the misidentification of an installation as being “nongenuine” could be quite disasterous. A completely legitimate installation of Vista locking up accidentally because of such functionality could cost an individual or business a great deal of time and money.
Several days back I wrote about Parrot, specifically the doubts I have that it will ever be suitable for production use. A link to my article was submitted to Reddit, and it generated some discussion. From that discussion, there is one comment in particular that I would like to respond to.