[xquery-talk] Izzit Bcos I is functional?

[Ihe Onwuka]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:01 PM, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com> wrote:

> Depends what you call “mainstream” (or successful) for a programming
> language…...
>
> Is it calculated in (1) #developers ?
>
> Or is it calculated in (2)  #instances running it ?
>
> Or is it calculated in (3) #millions of dollars revenue from it ?
>
> ==========
>
> A. If (2), the Scala will be a HUGE success — because of Spark.
>
> IBM just offered to put more then 3000 (!! and that’s a LARGE number) of
> developers on Spark.
>
>
Yes on Spark. Not Scala. Spark.

Cloudera just seemed to have dumped Hadoop to become a Spark reseller.
>
> So…. in terms on number of instances running it, Scala WILL be a huge
> success.
>
>
Spark supports Java, Python and Scala there is an open source SparkR.

Now let me remind you of your opening gambit in the discussion.

************************************************************
"Even though, because it’s functional, it will be restricted to be used
only by people with CS degrees, and not by
random Joes and Janes who write web sites. The way it is designed it is
intended to make a population of educated programmers
ETREMELY efficient, and NOT to increase the  total number of developers to
hundreds of millions.

When being reproached this fact in the past, my answer was always the same:
building a database application should not be for the uneducated.
It’s like building a 30 story building, you don’t do that without a
architect ad a structural engineer.
E.g. if you want to eradicate a grave neurological disease, you don’t lower
the bar to allow anyone from the street to perform a neurosurgery,
you just make the existing neurosurgents more productive."
*************************************************************

Now you tell me what you think is going to happen.

(how is Tyrpesafe, the company that does the Scala compiler making money …
> that’s another story…)
>
> B. If it is (3) — millions of $$$, I can probably give you the most
> “cost-effective” programming language in the world.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language)
>
> It’s used for high end financial systems, and a copy of this compiler
> costs about $1M.
>
> Not bad ….
>
> Number of developers writing code in this language … probably in the 100s….
>
> C. If it in terms of (1) number of developers …. are we really sure it
> matters ?
>
>
Yes.



> Who makes money today out of Javascript ? (arguably the most popular
> programming language …)
>
> Nobody.
>
>
Loads of people make a living out of it.


> ======================
>
> So, which one do you care about ?
>
> I care about (2) and (3).
>
>
If the answer were 2 XML would be deemed to be a raging success. But of
XQuery's woes you said "So…. I think it is simply a question of …. there is
no market for XML ……(aka no enough MONEY in the market)."

Similarly having loads of instances running Scala has to translate in some
meaningful way (beyond making money for Databricks and co). Show me the
money.



> On Jun 17, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wish I could agree with you but I think it is different this time.
>
> Couple of days ago I saw an update on the Scala group, somebody saying
> that the upsurge of interest in Spark could be the killer app that
> catapults Scala into the mainstream. Much as I would like to see it happen
> for a functional programming language, everybody except Scala dev's knows
> that the language is just too damn complicated to ever go mainstream.
>
> Even if this criticism could not be levelled at Scala, suspend disbelief
> for a minute and accept that Spark is indeed this killer app, alas it is
> not going to catapult Scala anywhere because the people employed in that
> domain will demand that it is delivered in Python and/or R and the people
> that hire them will acquiesce and say verily so.
>
> In the 1990's the bell tolled for the Cobol mainframe programmer. It's not
> like that now. On the JVM, the message is not adapt to Scala/Clojure or die
> it's don't worry mate stick to what you know and Java 8 will bail us out.
>
> The IT industry has presided over the widepsread and rudimentary
> amateurisation of  software development. So when the right solution comes
> along it encounters a rearguard  resistance from people who depend on the
> technological status quo for their jobs and who roll out their stock in
> trade objections (performance usually high up on the list). It's not like
> 1990 when mainframe programmers were saying I need to learn Unix/C and an
> Rdb and/or 5 years later I need to learn Java and what they thought to be
> OOP. Hence 20 years later we are still talking Java, Javascript and SQL and
> 5 years on they will be looking at Java 10 and still writing Fortran with
> classes. The industry goes along with it because they can continue to
> source bodies cheaply.
>
> I absolutely agree that what you said should be the way it is goes but I
> don't see how it is going to happen with the vested agenda's at play.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:10 PM, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>> Well I have no particular beef with the format itself other than the lack
>> of tools. Now that we have JSONiq I am less bothered about that (assuming
>> one has the opportunity to use it).
>>
>>
>> Well, JSONiq is only implemented by Zorba (and another implementation in
>> IBM middle tier).
>>
>> And Zorba is a dead piece of code.
>>
>> So, having “JSONiq” as a specification…...doesn’t mean much, isn’t it ?
>> Unless is adopted by other XQuery processors.
>> (which I cross fingers they will do…)
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with your ideals (1 and 2 above) too but it should be evident
>> from the sociology of the JSON community that these things are not going to
>> happen.
>>
>>
>> Well… nope. Not clear at all.
>>
>> I started working on query languages for XML in 1996.
>>
>> Same as now, the whole industry was for using SQL for querying XML —
>> including ME, I had
>> a system running, a bunch of PhD students working on that, etc.
>>
>> The decision of the W3C NOT to use SQL for that purpose was taken in
>> 2001.
>>
>> 5 years later. You know how many query languages have been proposed
>> during those 5 years ?
>> Tons: UnQL, XML-QL, etc, etc.
>>
>> Those things need TIME.
>>
>> People need to try SQL first, before they realize it’s a dead end.
>>
>> MarkLogic needs to try Javascript on the server side, before realizes
>> that’s a dead end.
>>
>> The industry moves MUCH, MUCH slower that one can expect.
>>
>>
>> You have people putting stuff in JSON databases without thinking how are
>> we going to get it out and coming up with half-assed solutions for doing
>> so. This is not progress and this is not good.
>>
>>
>> Again, patience is golden :-)
>>
>> There will be tons of those half baked solutions (MongoDB’s JSON query
>> language, CouchDB’s..), before people realize that this
>>  is not going anywhere….some of those databases will be acquired, never
>> to be seen again, them or their query languages….etc.
>>
>> ===============
>>
>> Honestly, I give it 5 years for the JSON query languages to stabilize.
>> 2020 would be my estimate. Even later if there is a database bubble crash
>> in the
>> meantime.
>>
>> Best
>> Dana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://x-query.com/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150618/e2a520e7/attachment.html>