- Silicon Valley's 19 Coolest Places to Work
- Is Windows 8 Development Worth the Trouble?
- 8 Books Every IT Leader Should Read This Year
- 10 Hot Hadoop Startups to Watch
IDG News Service - Today's commercial-grade programming languages -- C++ and Java, in particular -- are way too complex and not adequately suited for today's computing environments, Google distinguished engineer Rob Pike argued in a talk Thursday at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference.
Pike made his case against such "industrial programming languages" during his keynote at the conference in Portland, Oregon.
"I think these languages are too hard to use, too subtle, too intricate. They're far too verbose and their subtlety, intricacy and verbosity seem to be increasing over time," Pike said. "They're oversold, and used far too broadly."
As an illustration of the complexity of such languages, Pike showed a few examples of C++ code. One example was of a variable declaration that stretched nearly across an entire line of the screen.
"How do we have stuff like this [get to be] the standard way of computing that is taught in schools and is used in industry?" he asked, rhetorically. This sort of programming "is very bureaucratic. Every step must be justified to the compiler," he said.
While Pike admitted that he was being somewhat facetious, he asserted that such questions still should be asked. C++ came about because of people's frustration with working with the low-level C language, and Java came about as a way to simplify C++. Over time, however, new features were added to both languages, making them more and more complex.
"Noise comes with sophistication," he said.
Pike also added that such languages were developed before the advent of multicore processing and widespread networking, so they don't easily accommodate these new environments.
Pike is not the lone Google employee expressing dissatisfaction with traditional commercial-grade languages.
He noted that while Java is more expressive, it is also more verbose. "At this point to me it's a matter of choice which language you use," de Boor said.
These new languages tend to be slower, don't scale as well, and can harbor more errors, Pike elaborated.
The languages tend to be interpreted rather than compiled, meaning the programs written in such languages aren't compiled before running, so tend to run slower as a result. They also tend to be dynamically typed, meaning programmers don't need to specify what type of data their variables will hold.