Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I don't believe seeing this. It says:
For April, Chris Smith will be presenting on writing a Java to x86 Compiler in F#.
The presentation may go on for an hour or two which definitely is not enough to write a compiler. I've heard that F# is powerful, but this powerful?
Well, all I wanted to ask is this: Can you write a compiler in F# that quickly?
Let's first start with a few corrections:
It's not a Java compiler, it's a compiler for a small subset of Java.
It doesn't say anywhere that the compiler will be written in the time, only that it will be explained.
In fact, it doesn't even say that, it says, it will be presented. Heck, I can present GCC in 3 minutes. It's not gonna be a very useful presentation, but it's gonna be a presentation.
That said, explaining a well-structured, simple compiler for a simple language implemented in a language which is well-suited for writing compilers within an hour is definitely feasible.
F# is a member of the ML family of languages (specifically, a close cousin of OCaml), and those are indeed well-suited for writing compilers. In fact, the reason why Robin Milner chose the name ML (meta language) for his language, was because it is specifically designed for writing compilers. A compiler is basically a big function (thus making it very natural to implement in a functional language) that detects patterns (thus making it very natural to implement in a language with pattern matching) and executes a little bit of code for each pattern it detects (thus making it very natural to implement in a language with first-class functions). And whaddayaknow? F# is a functional language with very sophisticated pattern matching facilities. Another nice feature is an expressive type system with algebraic data types and discriminated unions which makes it very easy to represent Abstract Syntax Trees.
At the Lang.NET Symposium Jason Olson gave a talk on F#, during which he showed some pieces of an interpreter that he is currently working on that demonstrate these features very well.
Fredrik Holmström is currently working on IronJS, an ECMAScript 3 implementation for the Dynamic Language Runtime. Take a look at the code, specifically the AST types and some of the analysis and parsing code.
Jonathan Tang's Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours is another good example of writing an interpreter, this time in Haskell which shares many features with F#.
The 90 Minute Scheme to C compiler by Marc Feeley is a presentation about a Scheme compiler written in Scheme.
In Implementing Scheme in Ruby, James Coglan teaches the audience Scheme, live-codes and explains a Scheme interpreter in Ruby and writes a couple of sample Scheme programs, all in 15 minutes.
Giving a presentation about a project isn't the same thing as implementing the whole project during the presentation.
It's perfectly possible to present some interesting aspects of a Java to x86 compiler within an hour, and even show some code: but that's not the same as creating all the code then and there.
Java is a fairly complex language, so I suppose that Chris isn't going to implement a complete Java compiler. However, his talk really points out that manipulating with code (and tree-like structures in general) is much easier in F# than in any other .NET language. That's why F# has been used in various static analysis tools (e.g. Microsoft's static driver verifier)
Tools like fslex and fsyacc make it easy to write parser for a language. Chris has a blog with simple mathematical expressions. Robert Pickering wrote a more sophisticated example that actually generates IL code (compiles mathematical expressions to .NET) in just a few lines of code. This can be even easier on .NET 4.0 if you generate code using Expression Trees.
So I suppose that even if he was writing the compiler from scratch, he could write compiler for a langauge that can be used to write non-trivial sample programs.
Can you write a compiler in F# that quickly?
I have written two tiny compilers in F# over the past week, each in about that much time. So yes, it can be done. Here is one of them.
Note that the ML family of languages that F# is descended from were specifically designed for this application (metaprogramming).
Related
This question started out from
My translating of "ML for the Working Programmer" (WorldCat) by L. C. PAULSON to F# which uses functors for the examples.
Eventual desire to translate "Purely Functional Data Structures" (WorldCat) by Chris Okasaki which uses functors.
Reading "CATEGORIES TYPES AND STRUCTURES - An Introduction to Category Theory for the working computer scientist" (WorldCat) by Andrea Asperti and Giuseppe Longo.
Not understanding it all, mostly the category theory.
SML.NET can do functors and worked with Microsoft .NET.
* See: SML.NET User Guide Section 4.8.2 Class types and functors?
I keep seeing that F# cannot do true functors because of some limitation in Microsoft .NET.
* Can ML functors be fully encoded in .NET (C#/F#)?
* Any workaround for functor?
So if SML.NET could do functors on .NET then why can't F#? What did SML.NET do that F# can't?
The more I learn about functors coming from category theory, the more I see the beauty of them and desire to have them in F#.
EDIT
In a pursuit to better understand the relation between category theory and functional programming see these Q&A at CS:StackExchange.
There's no fundamental limitation of .NET that stops functors from being implemented in F#. True, they can't be represented directly in .NET metadata, but neither can other F# language features like union types. Compilers for languages with functors (e.g., Standard ML, OCaml) have a pass called defunctorize; it works just like C++ template expansion, in that it "flattens" the functors by specializing them into normal modules.
The F# compiler could do the same thing, but you then have to ask: how will this be exposed to other .NET languages? Since functors can't be directly encoded in the .NET type system, you'd need to come up with some way to represent them; and if that representation is difficult/impossible to use from C# or VB.NET, would it still make sense to include F# functors? A non-trivial part of F#'s success comes from it's ability to easily interop (in both directions) with C# and VB.NET.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to have functors in F#, they'd be really useful to handle a few cases which are currently painful and/or impossible to implement without them. I'm just pointing out that the main reason the language doesn't yet (and maybe won't ever) have functors is that the interop issue hasn't been solved; the metadata-encoding issue is actually the easy part.
EDIT 2: Code for the defunctorize pass of MLton: defunctorize.fun
Update: I had a thought about how functors actually could be expressed within the .NET type system, so I put together a little experiment. It isn't pretty, but it works -- so now we know it's at least plausible that F# could one day support functors. In practice, the complexity you see in my experimental code would all be hidden by the compiler/language. If you want to check it out: experimental-functors
I'm currently developing a general-purpose agent-based programming language (its syntaxt will be somewhat inspired by Java, and we are also using object in this language).
Since the beginning of the project we were doubtful about the fact of using ANTLR or Xtext. At that time we found out that Xtext was implementing a subset of the feature of ANTLR. So we decided to use ANLTR for our language losing the possibility to have a full-fledged Eclipse editor for free for our language (such a nice features provided by Xtext).
However, as the best of my knowledge, this summer the Xtext project has done a big step forward. Quoting from the link:
What are the limitations of Xtext?
Sven: You can implement almost any kind of programming language or DSL
with Xtext. There is one exception, that is if you need to use so
called 'Semantic Predicates' which is a rather complicated thing I
don't think is worth being explained here. Very few languages really
need this concept. However the prominent example is C/C++. We want to
look into that topic for the next release.
And that is also reinforced in the Xtext documentation:
What is Xtext? No matter if you want to create a small textual domain-specific language (DSL) or you want to implement a full-blown
general purpose programming language. With Xtext you can create your
very own languages in a snap. Also if you already have an existing
language but it lacks decent tool support, you can use Xtext to create
a sophisticated Eclipse-based development environment providing
editing experience known from modern Java IDEs in a surprisingly short
amount of time. We call Xtext a language development framework.
If Xtext has got rid of its past limitations why is it still not possible to find a complex Xtext grammar for the best known programming languages (Java, C#, etc.)?
On the ANTLR website you can find tons of such grammar examples, for what concerns Xtext instead the only sample I was able to find is the one reported in the documentation. So maybe Xtext is still not mature to be used for implementing a general purpose programming language? I'm a bit worried about this... I would not start to re-write the grammar in Xtext for then to recognize that it was not suited for that.
I think nobody implemented Java or C++ because it is a lot of work (even with Xtext) and the existing tools and compilers are excellent.
However, you could have a look at Xbase and Xtend, which is the expression language we ship with Xtext. It is built with Xtext and is quite a good proof for what you can build with Xtext. We have done that in about 4 person months.
I did a couple of screencasts on Xtend:
http://blog.efftinge.de/2011/03/xtend-screencast-part-1-basics.html
http://blog.efftinge.de/2011/03/xtend-screencast-part-2-switch.html
http://blog.efftinge.de/2011/03/xtend-screencast-part-3-rich-strings-ie.html
Note, that you can simply embed Xbase expressions into your language.
I can't speak for what Xtext is or does well.
I can speak to the problem of developing robust tools for processing real languages, based on our experience with the DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit, which we imagine is a language manipulation framework.
First, parsing of real languages usually involves something messy in lexing and/or parsing, due to the historical ways these languages have evolved. Java is pretty clean. C# has context-dependent keywords and a rudimentary preprocessor sort of like C's. C has a full blown preprocessor. C++ is famously "hard to parse" due to ambiguities in the grammar and shenanigans with template syntax. COBOL is fairly ugly, doesn't have any reference grammars, and comes in a variety of dialects. PHP will turn you to stone if you look at it because it is so poorly defined. (DMS has parsers for all of these, used in anger on real applications).
Yet you can parse all of these with most of the available parsing technologies if you try hard enough, usually by abusing the lexer or the parser to achieve your goals (how the GNU guys abused Bison to parse C++ by tangling lexical analysis with symbol table lookup is a nice ugly case in point). But it takes a lot of effort to get the language details right, and the reference manuals are only close approximations of the truth with respect to what the compilers really accept.
If Xtext has a decent parsing engine, one can likely do this with Xtext. A brief perusal of the Xtext site sounds like the lexers and parsers are fairly decent. I didn't see anything about the "Semantic Predicate"s; we have them in DMS and they are lifesavers in some of the really dark corners of parsing. Even using the really good parsing technology (we use GLR parsers), it would be very hard to parse COBOL data declarations (extracting their nesting structure during the parse) without them.
You have an interesting problem in that your language isn't well defined yet. That will make your initial parsers somewhat messy, and you'll revise them a lot. Here's where strong parsing technology helps you: if you can revise your grammar easily you can focus on what you want your language to look like, rather than focusing on fighting the lexer and parser. The fact that you can change your language definition means in fact that if Xtext has some limitations, you can probably bend your language syntax to match without huge amounts of pain. ANTLR does have the proven ability to parse a language pretty much as you imagine it, modulo the usual amount of parser hacking.
What is never discussed is what else is needed to process a language for real. The first thing you need to be able to do is to construct ASTs, which ANTLR and YACC will help you do; I presume Xtext does also. You also need symbol tables, control and data flow analysis (both local and global), and machinery to transform your language into something else (presumably more executable). Doing just symbol tables you will find surprisingly hard; C++ has several hundred pages of "how to look up an identifier"; Java generics are a lot tougher to get right than you might expect. You might also want to prettyprint the AST back to source code, if you want to offer refactorings. (EDIT: Here both ANTLR and Xtext offer what amounts to text-template driven code generation).
Yet these are complex mechanisms that take as much time, if not more than building the parser. The reason DMS exists isn't because it can parse (we view this just as the ante in a poker game), but because all of this other stuff is very hard and we wanted to amortize the cost of doing it all (DMS has, we think, excellent support for all of these mechanisms but YMMV).
On reading the Xtext overview, it sounds like they have some support for symbol tables but it is unclear what kind of assumption is behind it (e.g., for C++ you have to support multiple inheritance and namespaces).
If you are already started down the ANTLR road and have something running, I'd be tempted to stay the course; I doubt if Xtext will offer you a lot of additional help. If you really really want Xtext's editor, then you can probably switch at the price of restructuring what grammar you have (this is a pretty typical price to pay when changing parsing paradigms). Expect most of your work to appear after you get the parser right, in an ad hoc way. I doubt you will find Xtext or ANTLR much different here.
I guess the most simple answer to your question is: Many general purpose languages can be implemented using Xtext. But since there is no general answer to which parser-capabilities a general purpose languages needs, there is no general answer to your questions.
However, I've got a few pointers:
With Xtext 2.0 (released this summer), Xtext supports syntactic predicates. This is one of the most requested features to handle ambiguous syntax without enabling antlr's backtracking.
You might want to look at the brand-new languages Xbase and Xtend, which are (judging based on their capabilities) general-purpose and which are developed using Xtext. Sven has some nice screen casts in his blog: http://blog.efftinge.de/
Regarding your question why we don't see Xtext-grammars for Java, C++, etc.:
With Xtext, a language is more than just a grammar, so just having a grammar that describes a language's syntax is a good starting point but usually not an artifact valuable enough for shipping. The reason is that with an Xtext-grammar you also define the AST's structure (Abstract Syntax Tree, and an Ecore Model in fact) including true cross references. Since this model is the main internal API of your language people usually spend a lot of thought designing it. Furthermore, to resolve cross references (aka linking) you need to implement scoping (as it is called in Xtext). Without a proper implementation of scoping you can either not have true cross references in your model or you'll get many lining errors.
A guess my point is that creating a grammar + designing the AST model + implementing scoping is just a little more effort that taking a grammar from some language-zoo and translating it to Xtext's syntax.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
F# is derived from OCaml, but what major items are missing or added? Specifically I'm curious as to whether the resources available for learning OCaml are also useful to someone who wants to learn F#.
This question has been answered for some time now, but I was quite surprised that most of the answers say what OCaml features are missing in F# - this is definitely good to know if you want to port existing OCaml programs to F# (which is probably the motivation of most of the referenced articles). However, there are many features that make F# a different language (not just a limited version of OCaml for .NET!) Here is a couple of things that are added in F#:
Units of measure that allow you to type-check code dealing with numerical calculations
Meta-programming using quotations (which makes it possible to use LINQ in F# and is also essential for promissing projects like the WebSharper platform)
Active patterns for creating abstractions for functional data types (and generally very useful feature for more complicated pattern matching applications)
Computation expressions which is a language feature behind asynchronous workflows (a library for asynchronous I/O/web service/GUI programming)
.NET compatible object-system that makes it possible to fully interoperate with the .NET platform (OCaml also has a support for objects but different - there are of course some benefits in both of the systems).
Overloaded operators - As far as I know, OCaml doesn't have overloaded operators - in F# you can use + for all numeric types as well as your types that support it.
And, honestly, I think that it is also worth mentioning the Visual Studio IDE. This is not a part of the language, but it really improves the user experience (IntelliSense support in Visual Studio is really good!)
If you look at the list, there are many things that largely contributed to the popularity of F#, so it's much more than just "OCaml without functors". F# is definitely based on OCaml (and takes ideas from other languages such as Haskell) and shares many aspects with them, however there is also a lot of other things. I guess that without things like asynchronous workflows, .NET style OO and meta-programming, the Microsoft Developer Division would never include F# in Visual Studio 2010.
The main differences are that F# does not support:
functors
OCaml-style objects
polymorphic variants
the camlp4/5 preprocessor or extension points (ppx)
In addition, F# has a different syntax for labeled and optional parameters.
In theory, OCaml programs that don't use these features can be compiled with F#. Learning OCaml is a perfectly reasonable introduction to F# (and vice versa, I'd imagine).
The complete list of differences is here (note: archive.org replacement of dead link).
F# and OCaml are taxonimically classes in the ML family of languages, which includes a whole passle of other weird animals too. F# is newer than OCaml, and it doesn't have either functors [functions of module -> module] or row types [object classes and polymorphic variants] yet. Between them, those two simplifications probably make the learning curve easier for someone developing on the .Net platform. Sadly, those two language features are hugely powerful in OCaml, so reading the OCaml literature to gain insights into how to code for F# will probably lead to premature frustration with the latter when it's probably an excellent alternative to C# where both are available.
F# supports OCaml syntax directly. It might not be 100% compatible, but I think it's pretty close.
http://plus.kaist.ac.kr/~shoh/fsharp/html/index.html
Here is a list of differences (not sure how up-to-date it is)
http://plus.kaist.ac.kr/~shoh/fsharp/html/fsharp-vs-ocaml.html
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
From day 1 of my programming career, I started with object-oriented programming. However, I'm interested in learning other paradigms (something which I've said here on SO a number of times is a good thing, but I haven't had the time to do). I think I'm not only ready, but have the time, so I'll be starting functional programming with F#.
However, I'm not sure how to structure much less design applications. I'm used to the one-class-per-file and class-noun/function-verb ideas in OO programming. How do you design and structure functional applications?
Read the SICP.
Also, there is a PDF Version available.
You might want to check out a recent blog entry of mine: How does functional programming affect the structure of your code?
At a high level, an OO design methodology is still quite useful for structuring an F# program, but you'll find this breaking down (more exceptions to the rule) as you get down to lower levels. At a physical level, "one class per file" will not work in all cases, as mutually recursive types need to be defined in the same file (type Class1 = ... and Class2 = ...), and a bit of your code may reside in "free" functions not bound to a particular class (this is what F# "module"s are good for). The file-ordering constraints in F# will also force you to think critically about the dependencies among types in your program; this is a double-edged sword, as it may take more work/thought to untangle high-level dependencies, but will yield programs that are organized in a way that always makes them approachable (as the most primitive entities always come first and you can always read a program from 'top to bottom' and have new things introduced one-by-one, rather than just start looking a directory full of files of code and not know 'where to start').
How to Design Programs is all about this (at tiresome length, using Scheme instead of F#, but the principles carry over). Briefly, your code mirrors your datatypes; this idea goes back to old-fashioned "structured programming", only functional programming is more explicit about it, and with fancier datatypes.
Given that modern functional languages (i.e. not lisps) by default use early-bound polymorphic functions (efficiently), and that object-orientation is just a particular way of arranging to have polymorphic functions, it's not really very different, if you know how to design properly encapsulated classes.
Lisps use late-binding to achieve a similar effect. To be honest, there's not much difference, except that you don't explictly declare the structure of types.
If you've programmed extensively with C++ template functions, then you probably have an idea already.
In any case, the answer is small "classes" and instead of modifying internal state, you have to return a new version with different state.
F# provides the conventional OO approachs for large-scale structured programming (e.g. interfaces) and does not attempt to provide the experimental approaches pioneered in languages like OCaml (e.g. functors).
Consequently, the large-scale structuring of F# programs is essentially the same as that of C# programs.
Functional programming is a different paradigm for sure. Perhaps the easiest way to wrap your head around it is to insist that the design be laid out using a flow chart. Each function is distinct, no inheritance, no polymorphism, distinct. The data is passed around from function to function to make deletions, updates, insertion, and create new data.
On structuring functional programs:
While OO languages structure the code with classes, functional languages structure it with modules. Objects contain state and methods, modules contain data types and functions. In both cases the structural units group data types together with related behavior. Both paradigms have tools for building and enforcing abstraction barriers.
I would highly recommend picking a functional programming language you are comfortable with (F#, OCaml, Haskell, or Scheme) and taking a long look at how its standard library is structured.
Compare, for example, the OCaml Stack module with System.Collections.Generic.Stack from .NET or a similar collection in Java.
It is all about pure functions and how to compose them to build larger abstractions. This is actually a hard problem for which a robust mathematical background is needed. Luckily, there are several patterns with deep formal and practical research available. On Functional and Reactive Domain Modeling Debasish Ghosh explores this topic further and puts together several practical scenarios applying pure functional patterns:
Functional and Reactive Domain Modeling teaches you how to think of
the domain model in terms of pure functions and how to compose them to
build larger abstractions. You will start with the basics of
functional programming and gradually progress to the advanced concepts
and patterns that you need to know to implement complex domain models.
The book demonstrates how advanced FP patterns like algebraic data
types, typeclass based design, and isolation of side-effects can make
your model compose for readability and verifiability.
What is the added value for learning F# when you are already familiar with LISP?
Static typing (with type inference)
Algebraic data types
Pattern matching
Extensible pattern matching with active patterns.
Currying (with a nice syntax)
Monadic programming, called 'workflows', provides a nice way to do asynchronous programming.
A lot of these are relatively recent developments in the programming language world. This is something you'll see in F# that you won't in Lisp, especially Common Lisp, because the F# standard is still under development. As a result, you'll find there is a quite a bit to learn. Of course things like ADTs, pattern matching, monads and currying can be built as a library in Lisp, but it's nicer to learn how to use them in a language where they are conveniently built-in.
The biggest advantage of learning F# for real-world use is its integration with .NET.
Comparing Lisp directly to F# isn't really fair, because at the end of the day with enough time you could write the same app in either language.
However, you should learn F# for the same reasons that a C# or Java developer should learn it - because it allows functional programming on the .NET platform. I'm not 100% familiar with Lisp, but I assume it has some of the same problems as OCaml in that there isn't stellar library support. How do you do Database access in Lisp? What about high-performance graphics?
If you want to learn more about 'Why .NET', check out this SO question.
If you knew F# and Lisp, you'd find this a rather strange question to ask.
As others have pointed out, Lisp is dynamically typed. More importantly, the unique feature of Lisp is that it's homoiconic: Lisp code is a fundamental Lisp data type (a list). The macro system takes advantage of that by letting you write code which executes at compile-time and modifies other code.
F# has nothing like this - it's a statically typed language which borrows a lot of ideas from ML and Haskell, and runs it on .NET
What you are asking is akin to "Why do I need to learn to use a spoon if I know how to use a fork?"
Given that LISP is dynamically typed and F# is statically typed, I find such comparisons strange.
If I were switching from Lisp to F#, it would be solely because I had a task on my hands that hugely benefitted from some .NET-only library.
But I don't, so I'm not.
Money. F# code is already more valuable than Lisp code and this gap will widen very rapidly as F# sees widespread adoption.
In other words, you have a much better chance of earning a stable income using F# than using Lisp.
Cheers,
Jon Harrop.
F# is a very different language compared to most Lisp dialects. So F# gives you a very different angle of programming - an angle that you won't learn from Lisp. Most Lisp dialects are best used for incremental, interactive development of symbolic software. At the same time most Lisp dialects are not Functional Programming Languages, but more like multi-paradigm languages - with different dialects placing different weight on supporting FPL features (free of side effects, immutable data structures, algebraic data types, ...). Thus most Lisp dialects either lack static typing or don't put much emphasis on it.
So, if you know some Lisp dialect, then learning F# can make a lot of sense. Just don't think that much of your Lisp knowledge applies to F#, since F# is a very different language. As much as an imperative programming used to C or Java needs to unlearn some ideas when learning Lisp, one also needs to unlearn Lisp habits (no types, side effects, macros, ...) when using F#. F# is also driven by Microsoft and taking advantage of the .net framework.
F# has the benefit that .NET development (in general) is very widely adopted, easily available, and more mass market.
If you want to code F#, you can get Visual Studio, which many developers will already have...as opposed to getting the LISP environment up and running.
Additionally, existing .NET developers are much more likely to look at F# than LISP, if that means anything to you.
(This is coming from a .NET developer who coded, and loved, LISP, while in college).
I'm not sure if you would? If you find F# interesting that would be a reason. If you work requires it, it would be a reason. If you think it would make you more productive or bring you added value over your current knowledge, that would be a reason.
But if you don't find F# interesting, your work doesn't require it and you don't think it would make you more productive or bring you added value, then why would you?
If the question on the other hand is what F# gives that lisp don't, then type inference, pattern matching and integration with the rest of the .NET framework should be considered.
I know this thread is old but since I stumbled on this one I just wanted to comment on my reasons. I am learning F# simply for professional opportunities since .NET carries a lot of weight in a category of companies that dominate my field. The functional paradigm has been growing in use among more quantitatively and data oriented companies and I'd like to be one of the early comers to this trend. Currently there doesn't an exist a strong functional language that fully and safely integrates with the .NET library. I actually attempted to port some .NET from Lisp code and it's really a pain b/c the FFI only supports C primitives and .NET interoperability requires an 'interface' construct and even though I know how to do this in C it's really a huge pain. It would be really, really, good if Lisp went the extra mile in it's next standard and required a c++ class (including virtual functions w/ vtables), and a C# style interface type in it's FFI. Maybe even throw in a Java interface style type too. This would allow complete interoperability with the .NET library and make Lisp a strong contender as a large-scale language. However with that said, coming from a Lisp background made learning F# rather easy. And I like how F# has gone the extra mile to provide types that you would commonly see it quantitative type work. I believe F# was created with mathematical work in mind and that in itself has value over Lisp.
One way to look at this (the original question) is to match up the language (and associated tools and platforms) to the immediate task. If the task requires an overwhelming percentage of .NET code, and it would require less shoe-horning in one language than another to meet the task head-on, then take the path of least resistance (F#). If you don't need .NET capabilities, and you're comfortable working with LISP and there's no arm-bending to move away from it, keep using it.
Not really much different from comparing a hammer with a wrench. Pick the tool that fits the job most effectively. Trying to pick a tool that's objectively "best" is nonsense. And in any case, in 20 years, all of the currently "hot" languages might be outdated anyway.