Why use Ruby instead of Smalltalk? [closed] - ruby-on-rails

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Ruby is becoming popular, largely from the influence Ruby on Rails, but it feels like it is currently struggling through its adolescence. There are a lot of similarities between Ruby and Smalltalk -- maglev is a testament to that. Despite having a more unusual syntax, Smalltalk has all (if not more) of the object-oriented beauty of Ruby.
From what I have read, Smalltalk seems to have Ruby beat on:
Maturity (developed in the 1970's)
Stability
Commercial support
Distributed source control (understands structure of code, not just text diffing)
Several implementations of the VM
Cross-platform support
The seaside web framework as a strong alternative to Rails
It seems like Ruby is just reinventing the wheel. So, why don't Ruby developers use SmallTalk? What does Ruby have the Smalltalk doesn't?
For the record: I'm a Ruby guy with little to no experience in Smalltalk, but I'm starting to wonder why.
Edit: I think the ease-of-scripting issue has been addressed by GNU Smalltalk. As I understand it, this allows you to write smalltalk in regular old text files, and you no longer need to be in the Smalltalk IDE. You can then run your scripts with:
gst smalltalk_file


I'm more of a Pythonista than a Ruby user, however the same things hold for Ruby for much the same reasons.
The architecture of Smalltalk is somewhat insular whereas Python and Ruby were built from the ground up to facilitate integration. Smalltalk never really gained a body of hybrid application support in the way that Python and Ruby have, so the concept of 'smalltalk as embedded scripting language' never caught on.As an aside, Java was not the easiest thing to interface with other code bases (JNI is fairly clumsy), but that did not stop it from gaining mindshare. IMO the interfacing argument is significant - ease of embedding hasn't hurt Python - but this argument only holds moderate weight as not all applications require this capability. Also, later versions of Smalltalk did substantially address the insularity.
The class library of most of the main smalltalk implementations (VisualWorks, VisualAge etc.) was large and had reputation for a fairly steep learning curve. Most key functionality in Smalltalk is hidden away somewhere in the class library, even basic stuff like streams and collections. The language paradigm is also something of a culture shock for someone not familiar with it, and the piecemeal view of the program presented by the browser is quite different to what most people were used to.The overall effect is that Smalltalk got a (somewhat deserved) reputation for being difficult to learn; it takes quite a bit of time and effort to become a really proficient Smalltalk programmer. Ruby and Python are much easier to learn and to bring new programmers up to speed with.
Historically, mainstream Smalltalk implementations were quite expensive and needed exotic hardware to run, as can be seen this net.lang.st80 posting from 1983. Windows 3.1, NT and '95 and OS/2 were the first mass market operating systems on mainstream hardware capable of supporting a Smalltalk implementation with decent native system integration. Previously, Mac or workstation hardware were the cheapest platforms capable of running Smalltalk effectively. Some implementations (particularly Digitalk) supported PC operating systems quite well and did succeed in gaining some traction.However, OS/2 was never that successful and Windows did not achieve mainstream acceptance until the mid 1990s. Unfortunately this coincided with the rise of the Web as a platform and a large marketing push behind Java. Java grabbed most of the mindshare in the latter part of the 1990s, rendering Smalltalk a bit of an also-ran.
Ruby and Python work in a more conventional toolchain and are not tightly coupled to a specific development environment. While the Smalltalk IDEs I have used are nice enough I use PythonWin for Python development largely because it has a nice editor with syntax highlighting and doesn't get underfoot.However, Smalltalk is was designed to be used with an IDE (in fact, Smalltalk was the original graphical IDE) and still has some nice features not replicated by other systems. Testing code with highlight and 'Show it' is still a very nice feature that I have never seen in a Python IDE, although I can't speak for Ruby.
Smalltalk was somewhat late coming to the web application party. Early efforts such as VisualWave were never terribly successful and it was not until Seaside came out that a decent web framework got acceptance in Smalltalk circles. In the meantime Java EE has had a complete acceptance lifecycle starting with raving fanboys promoting it and finally getting bored and moving onto Ruby ;-}Ironically, Seaside is starting to get a bit of mindshare among the cognoscenti so we may find that Smalltalk rides that cycle back into popularity.
Having said that, Smalltalk is a very nice system once you've worked out how to drive it.


When I leave my house in the morning to go to work, I often struggle with the decision to make a left or right turn out of my drive way (I live in the middle of a street). Either way will get me to my destination. One way leads me to the highway which, depending on traffic, will probably get me to the office the quickest. I get to drive very fast for at least part of the way and I have a good chance of seeing a pretty girl or two on their way to work :-)
The other way allows me to travel down a very enchanting, windy back road with complete tree cover. That path is quite enjoyable and of the two approaches is definitely the more fun, though it means that I will get to the office later than I would have had I taken the highway. Each way has its merits. On days that I am in a big hurry, I will usually take the highway though I may run into traffic and I also increase my chances of getting into an accident (if I am not careful in my haste). Other days I may choose the woody path and be driving along, enjoying the scenery and realize that I am running late. I may try to speed up, raising my chances of getting a ticket or causing an accident myself.
Neither way is better than the other. They each have their benefits and risks, and each will get me to my goal.


I think your question is somewhat missing the point.
You shouldn't choose, you should learn them both!
If you truly are in a position that you can choose the next framework(vm, infrastructure) then you need to decided what to use and can ask a specific question with pros and cons from the perspective of what your application is inteded to do.
I have used smalltalk (love it) and ruby (love it).
At home or for open source project I can use every language I like, but when doing work I have to adopt.
I started to use ruby (at work) because we needed some scripting language that behaved more-or-less equally under solaris,linux and windows(98,2000,xp). Ruby was at that time unknown to average-joe and there didn't exist any rails. But it was easy to sell to everyone involved.
(Why not python? the truth ? I once spend a week hunting for a bug that happened when a terminal converted my space to a tab and the intending got messed up).
So people started to code more and more in ruby because it was so relaxing, enjoying and not a cloud on the sky.
Paul Graham sums it up
It's true, certainly, that most people don't choose programming languages simply based on their merits. Most programmers are told what language to use by someone else.
and
To be attractive to hackers, a
language must be good for writing the
kinds of programs they want to write.
And that means, perhaps surprisingly,
that it has to be good for writing
throwaway programs.
And when were at the Lisp land try to replace LISP with smalltalk
Ruby’s libraries, community, and momentum are good
So if LISP is still more powerful than
Ruby, why not use LISP? The typical
objections to programming in LISP are:
There aren’t enough libraries.
We can’t hire LISP programmers.
LISP has gone nowhere in the past 20 years.
These aren’t overwhelming objections,
but they’re certainly worth
considering.
and
Now, given a choice between a powerful
language, and popular language, it may
make excellent sense to pick the
powerful one. But if the difference in
power is minor, being popular has all
sorts of nice advantages. In 2005, I’d
think long and hard before choosing
LISP over Ruby. I’d probably only do
it if I needed optimized code, or
macros which acted as full-fledged
compilers.


I would say the opposite: Smalltalk syntax is one of the simplest and powerful programming language syntaxes.


It's true the languages are very much alike. The shallow way to interpret that is to call Ruby a Smalltalk cover band. The more reasonable interpretation is that Smalltalk's closed system isolated it, while Ruby's participation in the Unix ecology and habit of appropriating features from every language under the sun gives it an infinitely gentler adoption curve and effortless integration with kickass tools like Git.
Giles Bowkett


Guess who said this? (quote is close, maybe not exact): "I always thought Smalltalk would beat Java. I just didn't know if would be called 'Ruby' when it did so."
Drum roll ....
...
The answer is ... Kent Beck


Stephane Ducasse has some great Smalltalk books available here:
http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html
so although the Smalltalk community is not as prolific as the Ruby and Rails communities, there is still some great help out there.


what does Ruby have that Smalltalk doesn't?
Massive, current support by major platforms (IronRuby and jRuby) that enrich the set of libraries
Evangelists like Dave Thomas who, for years, have been touring around the country preaching the gospel of their language. I have seen Dave at Java conferences stating he doesn't know Java and that he prefers Ruby.
Strong, current real estate on the bookshelves
The creator of Ruby has said that he thinks about the programmer: Ruby's syntax seems to have this Zen appeal. It is hard to pin down, yet seems to galvanize the fans.
Creative, dynamic presentations like Giles and this one that gain mindshare
I think your point is well-taken. As a friend once put it, Ruby might be "old wine in a new bottle" vis-a-vis Smalltalk. But sometimes the new bottle matters. A wine has to be in the right place at the right time.


Beats me. I spent a year checking out Ruby and doing some smallish projects to see how I liked it. I guess I'm a Smalltalk bigot because every time I'd sit down to work with Ruby I'd sigh and think "I'd really rather be doing this in Smalltalk". Finally I gave in and went back to Smalltalk. Now I'm happier. Happier is gooder.
Which of course begs the question, "Why?". In no particular order:
Because the IDE blows away anything else I've ever worked with. This includes a bunch of platforms from ISPF on IBM mainframes to Microsoft's Visual (.*), include things such as Visual Basic 4-6, Visual C++ (various incarnations), Borland's Turbo Pascal and descendants (e.g. Delphi), and stuff on DEC machines in both character mode and under X-Windows.
Because the image is a beautiful place to live. I can find what I want in there. If I can't figure out how to do something I know that somewhere in the image is an example of what I'm trying to do - all I have to do is hunt until I find it. And it's self-documenting - if you want to see the details of how something works you just open a browser on the class you're interested in, look at the method, and that's how it works. (OK, eventually you'll hit something that calls a primitive, and then it's "here there be dragons", but it's usually understandable from context). It's possible to do similar things in Ruby/C++/C, but it's not as easy. Easy is better.
The language is minimal and consistent. Three kinds of messages - unary, binary, and keyword. That describes the priority of execution, too - unary messages first, then binary messages, then keyword messages. Use parentheses to help things out. Dang little syntax, really - it's all done with message sends. (OK, assignment isn't a message send, it's an operator. So's the 'return' operator (^). Blocks are enclosed by square brace pairs ([ ] ). Might be one or two other 'magic' bits in there, but darn little...).
Blocks. Yeah, I know, they're there in Ruby (and others), but dang it, you literally can't program in Smalltalk without using them. You're forced to learn how to use them. Sometimes being forced is good.
Object-oriented programming without compromise - or alternatives, for that matter. You can't pretend that you're "doing objects" while still doing the same old thing.
Because it will stretch your brain. The comfortable constructs we've all gotten used to (if-then-else, do-while, for( ; ; ), etc) are no longer there so you have to Learn Something New. There are equivalents to all the above (and more), but you're going to have to learn to think differently. Differently is good.
On the other hand this may just be the ramblings of a guy who's been programming since the days when mainframes ruled the earth, we had to walk five miles to work through blinding snowstorms, uphill both ways, and computers used donuts for memory. I've got nothing against Ruby/Java/C/C++/, they're all useful in context, but give me Smalltalk or give me...well, maybe I should learn Lisp or Scheme or... :-)


Smalltalk:
people forwards ifTrue: [think] ifFalse: [not thinking]
Ruby:
people think forwards unless thinking backwards
1) Smalltalk's RPN-like control flow by messages is like Lisp - it's regular and cool but weirds people out.
2) Ruby lets people write code using the idiomatic way people speak - do blah unless there's a reason not to.
update rewrote the Smalltalk sample to actually be more legal code..


Ruby is the current buzz language. It's easier to market software built with it right now than a language developed in the 70s.


Community! Ruby and especially Rails has such a great community. When messing around with smalltalk it seemed that there were not as many screen casts, articles, blog posts, etc. written about Smalltalk.


You answered the question in your first line: "Ruby is becoming popular"
There are a lot of interesting modules, projects and such based around Ruby.
If you have trouble doing something in Ruby, it will be trivial to find help somewhere.
Ruby is installed on a lot of computers now (It's included by default on OS X, many Linux distros, and there are good installers for Windows) - I've not seen smalltalk installed by default on any machine I've used..
I would say wether or not one language is superior to another is irrelevant.. As an example, PHP may not be the "best" language ever, but I would still consider using it over Ruby on Rails (a "better" tool for creating websites) because it is so widespread.
Basically, specific pros and cons of a language are far less important than everything surrounding it - namely the community.


Ruby (or any other language) is more popular than Smalltalk (or any other language) because we live in a chaotic universe. To wit:
From Dave Thomas himself, "[after
the] video on 'How to Build a Blog in
Ten Minutes'... Ruby went from being
a nice little niche language, to
being 'a language you wrote Rails
apps in'" (Ruby Conference 2010
keynote).
Early Smalltalk vendors charged prohibitively
Smalltalk, because it was invented (ahead of its time) 30 years ago, occurs to many as an old, "dead" language (like FORTRAN)
corporations consider Smalltalk such a competitive advantage that they hide its use
While the languages are similar in OO features, Smalltalk's killer advantage is the live, open environment (the much-misunderstood 'image'). After you check out this example of programming in Smalltalk, the debate is over.


For me its not so much a case of what Ruby has, but what Ruby hasn't. And the thing that it doesn't have is the need for a VM and complete environment.
Smalltalk is great - its where I learnt OO concepts, but for ease of use I go for Ruby. I can write Ruby code in my favourite editor and run it form the command line.
So, for me, thats what I choose Ruby over Smalltalk.


I think everyone who has been working with Ruby for a while recognizes its deep debt to Smalltalk. As one of these people, what do I like about Ruby over Smalltalk? I think from a strictly language perspective, it's the sugar. Ruby is deliberately a very syntax-sugary language, whereas Smalltalk is a very syntax-minimal language. Ruby is essentially the Smalltalk object model with Perlish syntax sugar. I happen to like the sugar and find it makes programming more fun.


You can find a job pretty easily doing Ruby. Although I really love Smalltalk, it's virtually impossible to get into the Smalltalk niche. There is work around in it, but if you didn't get in when it was popular it's virtually impossible now.
All the other reasons pale into insignificance because you need to spend plenty of time, focused on real work to learn a language properly. If you're not independently wealthy, the best way to do that is exposure to it at work.


Because Smalltalk distributions were priced in multiples of $1000USD whereas Ruby is free.


Ruby is to Smalltalk as Arabic numerals are to Roman numerals. Same math, easier syntax.


I've done a little Smalltalk - the IDE is one thing I remember - does Ruby have good IDE support?


Use Ruby because it has might have business legs, Smalltalk doesn't.
I can tell you from personal experience. Still using Smalltalk, love it, and have used a couple flavors. Although Smalltalk is a great language, and is everything you mentioned, you wont likely convince the average CIO/CTO to use Smalltalk on a new project. Of course, you might even have a hard time convincing a conservative CIO/CTO to use Ruby. In the end you have to be very careful if you want sustained long term commercial support and the ability to find off-the-street employees that can support your systems in the future. As an example, Smalltalk was a really big thing in the early 90's and IBM invested heavily into it in the late 90's. For IBM Smalltalk was going to be the next language for all business applications. IBM put Smalltalk on everything including their mainframe systems. Java became popular, took over the market, and Smalltalk became a niche player. Over a year ago IBM dumped the language (their term is sunset). Also, take a look at the History. ParkPlace and Digitalk where the first major commercial players in the Smalltalk arena, they merged and then went out of business.


I love both Smalltalk and Ruby - but have found that Ruby is more applicable to what I do daily, and is closer to my heart (practically speaking). What does Ruby offer that Smalltalk doesn't?
Text-based scripting
Low implementation requirements (runs in more places)
Easier to learn and justify (Perl and Python programmers will have no trouble
Easier to move programs around - text files!
Interfaces well with native environment
Anywhere Java runs, jRuby runs...
Bigger and much more active community
Some have mentioned gst (GNU Smalltalk); the problems still hold.


Use whatever makes you more powerful and faster to beat your challenge.
For us, a little in house framework, we built in top of seaside is really our superpower.
I love the RoR community, it has the right attitude. That's very very valuable. But at the same time, technologically, seaside makes you stronger against more complicated problems.
You can do great seaside web apps using open-source stuff.
dabbledb was a sartup based on seaside and, hey! Avi sold it to twitter in june this year!
I say you don't need to wait for others to approve your initiative.
Just go for it. Make it done. Show us that works.
You're not alone. We are on the same boat.


Interesting perspective from Robert Martin (from RailsConf 2009): "What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby, Too"


I think part of the problem is the development-environment-is-the-runtime. This gives a lot of power, but it also presents a larger learning curve.
Here is a hello world tutorial.
This is very different from other languages where I just need to know how to open a text editor and copy and paste text, hit save, and run a compiler. I HAVE to know how to use the environment. That tutorial doesn't even show me how to create a basic program (which is likely more a fault of that tutorial) that I can run.
There is definately a higher cost of just getting things going than most other languages.
Most languages have some nice eye-catching code that they can show off. I haven't seen that with Smalltalk. I also think that there is some stigma to Smalltalk because it has been around so long and it is still relatively obscure.


I think the BIGGEST difference is that Ruby is much more similar to perl in terms of USEAGE. Smalltalk never got a foothold into the "scripting" languages.
The VM is really cool and I hope ruby will have something similar to it so we can treat everything on our OS that is written in ruby as object in memory space, however until then I simply enjoy Ruby's terse, short syntax, the ability to just write a tiny script and reuse it later. Ruby got all the advantages of perl and the OOP is much more similar to smalltalk than perl's OOP hack.


I would go further than Jonke's answer, and say there are now a large number of languages that have a very strong community, almost enough to suit every taste, and a subset of these have mainstream recognition (i.e. your manager will let you use them at work as well).
It's easy to learn the basics of a language, but to actually use it effectively you need to invest enough time to learn the platform and the tools, as well as the syntax and the idioms. IIRC, McConnell claims that it takes about three years to become truly proficient.
Given those things, it's hard to justify spending a lot of time on languages like LISP and Smalltalk, although they are interesting and perhaps educational to look at.


As a latecomer to discussion, the main problem with Smalltalk and Lisp is that you can't run them with CGI or FastCGI on shared hosting.
The unwashed masses are never going to use them if they need VPS or dedicated servers to use them. IMHO Seaside is superior to almost anything out ther, but will it run on Dreamhost or Webfaction?

Related

clojure vs. Ruby [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
I'm ASP.NET developer. I want to learn web development technologies and other languages than Microsofts.
I heard about two languages but I don't know which one is better or how to favor one over the other especially that clojure is new somehow.
Could anyone help me about why to choose one of them over the other?.
Thanks.

Ruby will obviously give you a better bang for your buck if your aim is to get things done and to reuse mature libraries. It must have one of the most vibrant ecosystem considering web development. The quantity of new stuff is big and, most importantly, the quality is often amazing.
It has a very nice package distribution system, and a number of tools which makes practical web development a breeze, at all levels.
In the heavyweights web frameworks you have:
Rails, which you have necessarily heard about. It is probably one of the best compromise today between big community and intelligent design. The other one would be django in my opinion but it is a python framework
Merb, which is a lighter alternative in the full blown framework department
And you have a ton of lighter ones, like Sinatra , which is probably one of the most elegant small web framework i have ever seen, or Camping, which is small and very fun to use.
This is only the beginning. Be it for ORMs, templating engines, or anything else you'd want to do with it web related, you have a ton of quality options.
On the negative side for ruby:
It is a very dense language, with a lot of things to learn, and a distinct inclination for "magic" constructs. It is quite beautiful, but it is far from the simplest language.
It is slow. If you want to do anything that needs performance, ruby is probably not the language you need. That may or may not be a problem depending on what you want to do with it
It doesn't have as many library for "regular programming" than it has for web programming, although it is clearly not the desert either. A language like python has a more wide range of libraries if you step out of web programming though.
Clojure is a very different beast altogether. It is a very new language, and it is entirely functional. If you never programmed in a functional style before, it may be a paradigm shift that will make you less productive for a while, but you will almost certainly learn a lot in the process.
It is also a lisp, and like with functional programming, it will probably mean a lot of new things to learn, but a lot of enlightenment at the end of the process.
It is a very elegant language, with a very vibrant community. It is also a lot faster than ruby, and it is only getting better with the new 1.2 version.
So on the positive side :
It is a clever language. Contains a lot of interesting ideas, notably regarding concurrency. It is not object oriented
It's fast for a dynamic language
It runs on the JVM, and has a very strong and easy to use interop system with Java. That basically means you have the whole Java ecosystem to your disposal.
On the negative side :
It is very new. That is not a disadvantage in itself, but is the reason for other troubles you might have with it along the way.
It has very few well integrated and thought libraries. This is the point that is the most detrimental in my opinion. You basically have everything you will ever need in java world, but the solutions may be ugly. You might want to code your own wrapper library in the process, but this takes time.
It is not like everything you know. It's not object oriented, it is not imperative, and it hasn't anything like classical C syntax. So depending on your other language experiences, it might take a long time to learn
So the summary is :
If you want to learn new things in a very comfortable environnment while having the possibility to build things very fast by leveraging mature libraries, choose ruby.
If you want to learn even more new things, you don't mind in totally new territory, eventually taking more time to do things, and you want to participate to a community that might be on its way to modify the way we think about programming, while hacking and having fun in the process, choose clojure ;)

Switching from ASP to Ruby is probably easier than switching to Clojure, also it has a larger community and ecosystem. However, if you are interested in functional programming and/or fancy concurrency features, you should give Clojure a shot.

Ruby is a nice language though I'm partial to the Django framework over Rails. One thing that I have found working with interpreted languages is their ambiguous implementation of threads. In both Ruby and Python the interpreter will only crunch though one thread at a time.
As far as clojure goes, think about how big the library will be when you try to use it. Coming from .Net you already have a huge lib. Python and Ruby are fairly mature at this point, and you can find most any extensions you could imagine. It is so easy to take a big library for granted until you don't have it. Before switching look at .Net nuke. Haven't used it but it's supposed to be model/viewer layer for .Net.

Erlang vs OCaml (best niche to fit)

Hi I'd like to pick up one FP language (it's always a pain when you work in a position that does not require you learn much), and after doing some research, I felt Erlang and OCaml are the two that I'd really like to get my feet wet for the following reasons:
1) I work mainly on high-availability web server back-end system in C++. I heard Erlang is a great fix in scalability and fault-tolerance. Though I don't think my current company will have any project in Erlang, I feel Erlang may be a good language for my long term career development.
2) I have a co-worker who is really good at OCaml, I mean he is really good at it (but he does not work on that for his daily work now. He maintains several library). So I figured that he may be a good resource if I learn OCaml.
My interests are mainly on distributed systems (my current work is some midldle-ware development work) and high-performance computing (guess what, I had a couple of years graduate school research on it, in particular PDE in Financial applications -- so I always felt I may go back to do some finance modeling work maybe sometime later)
Any suggestions? Please don't suggest "learn both", as I am not that smart :-)
Thanks

Ocaml is a great language -- one of my favorites -- but if your interest is distributed systems than I'd recommend going with Erlang, which is head and shoulders ahead of the other FP languages with regards to distributed systems (although there's an offshoot of Ocaml called Jocaml which has some interesting aspects).
Ocaml is weaker even when just looking at parallelism, given its underlying architecture. Both Haskell and Clojure have better stories here, imho. (That said: once you get one FP language, you'll be able to carry the fundamental principles to other languages pretty easily, and they might be useful in the future. Both Scala and Clojure could easily sneak their way into organizations by virtue of the JVM.)

I think Ocaml is a great way to get started in FP, and Erlang is not very difficult once you have the basic FP concepts down.
But the suggestion from 'aneccodeal' is fantastic-- i.e., if you are interested in Ocaml and have a friend who is already strong in it, by all means develop a concurrency (perhaps MPI) library for it.
Keep in mind, however, that one of the barriers to making Ocaml concurrent is the lack of concurrent garbage collection (or so I have read).

If you have a co-worker who is "really good" with OCaml then it sounds like you have a great resource assuming that s/he is willing to answer your questions. It's always easier to learn when there's someone knowledgeable around that you can ask questions of if you get stuck.
Yes it's true that OCaml doesn't have the best story when it comes to parallelism, but there are ways to get parallelism in OCaml (fork-based seems to be the most common - checkout prelude.ml which includes things like parallel map: http://github.com/kig/preludeml/tree/master ). Also, it seems that Erlang's Actor-based concurrency is really fairly easy to duplicate in other languages. Maybe you and your co-worker could work on a project to develop an Actor-based concurrency library for OCaml? That would give you a nice learning project that you co-worker would probably find interesting enough to work on with you... in addition you could end up creating something useful for the entire OCaml community.

I would also consider to look at F# (especially when VS 2010 is out).
Learning a new language is a lot easier and more convenient with a nice IDE.
F# and OCaml are very similar as you can see in other SO threads (e.g. here)

I'm interested in Programming Languages. What areas of programming are good for me?

I've always been interested in writing and designing programming languages. Of course, it's pretty difficult to find an employer that will let you write a programming language as part of your job. So I'm looking for the "next best thing".
What fields of programming will let me get some experience solving some related problems? Or what kinds of employers are most likely to view all of my dinky little interpreters as relevant experience?

If your interest in language design is irrepressible, get a Ph.D. and make it your area of research. You can count on academia to support all manner of unprofitable activity.

None. The bulk of the professionals in that field do not design languages for a living, but retarget existing compilers to new (usually embedded) targets, or work on source2source conversion systems for legacy code, making a few language extensions in the process.
You should really ask yourself if you want this, because, besides from an extremely lucky shot, that is the realistic outlook of what you will do if you go into this industry.
Remember that the big public toolchain industry is not very profitable at the moment, and that maybe a good 100 languages are in largescale pulbic use and continually maintained, after 30 years of programming languages creation.
I know this is is very gloom, but I hope it sets you on the path to chuck the romantic, hobbyist view, and start researching how the real world in this field looks like.
Moreover, having done small hobby projects on your own is not really a pre. You need to show that you can work on large projects in a team, more than that you can create a small interpreter on your own. If you really want to pursue this, I'd recommend:
stay in school, and get a bachelor (preferably a master or PHD) in CS.
join some opensource team that works on a significant project in the field. gcc, but also the Java world, Tracemonkey (Mozilla), Mono etc. Verifiable experience in real world scenarios is very important.

I think the best way to get into this type of work would be to undertake an advanced degree with a specific focus on language design, compilers etc. It's going to be very tough for you to walk in off the street into a private company and start writing new language features otherwise.
You could also shoot a little higher and on your own, or with a small team, produce something that is much more than just a dinky little interpreter. Show your potential employer that you can produce something useful.

I have worked as an embedded programmer for the past ten years. Before that I wrote compilers (and assemblers, linkers, debuggers, etc.) for 20 years.
My co-workers joke that I turn every problem in to a parsing problem. And they're right. I've used techniques that are appropriate for language design many times during the course of my career.
Today, I play around with compiler stuff on the side: http://ellcc.org. It helps me scratch my language itch.

Actually, there is a fair bit of work going on with visual programming. It isn't exactly traditional programming language work as we know it but there is a need for it. For example, a lot of advanced data analysis tools rely on visual programming tools (Pentaho). You don't have to look too hard to find good practical uses of visual programming.
To get into visual programming languages, you will need to do an advanced degree with an advisor in the area. You will need to do some human computer interaction / interface work in addition to the programming language stuff.

An employer that has a rich "domain" (i.e. a complex industry) can benefit from a "domain specific language".
Will they realise this? Unlikely. They'll be too likely trapped in their deep domain (and entrenched legacy systems) to see that a targeted language could help unclog the mire.
But if you bury yourself in a complex industry for long enough to gain rich domain knowledge you may then be able to turn them with your own skunkwork DSL. Slim chance.

Stay in academia. If you want to develop a new language your chances of being paid to do so are vanishingly small. Newer languages tend to be expressions of a novel problem domain, and you only really encounter the chance to develop them where (a) novel problems are part of the scenery, and (b) no-one is troubled by the necessity to actually earn a living.
Please take your time over it, as well. Speaking as a jobbing developer, the last thing I need is another blasted language to learn :-)

In static analysis there is a lot to do, and the problems that come up are related to those that interest you.

Most currently popular languages came out of a geniune NEED to scratch a particular ITCH. Python came about because some non-C programmers NEEDed to customize inputs their C programs and libraries. Lua came out of the NEED to embed a scripting language in to C programs. Erlang was created to address the NEED of 99.9999999% uptime, hot code loading, and highly concurrent execution. Perl came out of the NEED to easily write programs that parsed text files.
So the very simple question any employer will be asking themselves, and you should ask yourself is. What NEED can I supply a solution to that doesn't exist. Hobby work very seldom shows that you are providing solutions to a NEED, most of the time it is showing that you like to re-invent the wheel for the sake of re-inventing the wheel.

What scares you the most about the integrated IDE of most modern Smalltalks? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
As I'm riding the wave of resurgence of Smalltalk (especially because many Ruby-on-Rails people are rediscovering Smalltalk and seeing Seaside as their next upgraded web framework), I get questions like "yeah, but how do I use my favorite editor to edit Smalltalk code?" or "Does Smalltalk still insist on living in a world of its own?".
Now, having first experienced Smalltalk back in 1981, I don't understand these questions very well. It seems rather natural that I'd want the editor and debugger to be savvy of my current code state, and integrate with the change control system that is Smalltalk-aware. Using an external editor or debugger or change control manager would seem very awkward.
So what is it that scares you the most about not being able to edit the five-line methods in Smalltalk with your favorite editor, or use your favorite non-Smalltalk-aware change control system?

Everything's different. Want to go to the end of the line? It's not Ctrl-E. Want to jump a few words over, by word? It's not Meta-F....
Text editing is a fundamental programming activity. Messing with those inputs is messing with something deep in my mind.
Edit: and here is someone asking for emacs key bindings on comp.lang.smalltalk in 1987.

The only Smalltalk I've spent any time with is Squeak, so my views may not apply to other Smalltalk environments.
What concerns me about the image-based approach is that, while you have wonderful things in the Smalltalk environment, it is a walled garden that makes it difficult to interoperate with anything outside that environment. For example, what if I want to use external tools like Yacc and Lex? What if I want to use some C or Python programs to generate Smalltalk code? What if I want to mix Smalltalk in with a bunch of code written in other languages, editing code in all those languages in one editor and keeping it all stored in the same source-code tree?
I'm sure it's possible to deal with all these issues by having your Smalltalk environment invoke system functions to control external tools. But how easy is it to let external tools control your Smalltalk environment? In other words, what if I want Smalltalk to be just another component, rather than the master of everything?

Nothing scares me in particular, but I found working out the API's in VW a bit of a chore, even when I had used other smalltalks. The effect of the browsers is that you tend to see the API's a little bit at a time and quite often it's not immediately obvious where you should look for particular functionality.
Smalltalk also suffers a bit from the paradigm shift to understand how it works. When I was doing my bachelor's degree at university (some time after I had first encountered Smalltalk) I got to enjoy a bit of Schadenfraude watching everyone else in the class getting over the initial paradigm hump as they learned the system (Squeak) for the first time.
I think the combination of the paradigm shift and functionality being somewhat buried in the class libraries makes for a bit of a steep learning curve. ST had a reputation for a fairly steep learning curve to really come up to speed - most of this is due to the large class libraries and the fact that most of the language functionality is buried somewhere in the libraries.
Also (and sadly), Java came along in the mid 1990s and grabbed all of the mindshare. The major Smalltalks have either died completely or been sold off to niche players. It's quite Ironic (in a happy way) that Ruby has served to re-awaken interest in Smalltalk but the lingering perception of 'also-ran' obsolescence doesn't help.
See This post of mine for some pontification about the merits (as I see them) of getting heavily involved in Smalltalk in this day and age.
I would be quite happy to go back into Smalltalk if the opportunity were to arise.

The one big show-stopper for me is that code I write one Smalltalk VM is STILL, after all these years, not compatible with other Smalltalk VMs.
I understand why that is: the core of Smalltalk is an extremely small set of axioms and keywords. This means that after 30 minutes of learning Smalltalk, you're already learning the API library rather than the language itself. I like that approach to language design.
What it all boils down to however, in the Smalltalk world, is that unless a consensus is reached between all VM vendors to have a common base Standard API, my Smalltalk code written for one VM is almost certain not to run on other VMs when I decide to switch.
This also has the corollary of obsoleting part of my knowledge of the space when I switch VMs.
Note that I have barely tried Smalltalk in my life. I'm far from being an expert. This understanding comes from speaking with James Robertson about a month ago.
Another point I'd like to make is that Seaside does in fact run on most popular Smalltalk VMs. I wonder how much of (what should have been) a Standard API they had to build for themselves to achieve that feat.
With all that said, I always have an ear out to hear more about the state of Smalltalk. I do want to try out Smalltalk's very powerful development environment (and its other goodies).

I know it's late but the biggest annoyance for me is that there is not really good editor in none of the smalltalks. It's a thing I can not understand. Working with text is so essential and that less "supported"....
It's always this just staring at one method and then you need to have some method finder or another browser around just to check another method. This is what I really dislike....

While the restricted Smalltalk environment made things like relying on a database driven source control system possible at times where other languages still struggled with having a proper editor, it makes integration very hard in todays times.
With tools like Eclipse or Team Foundation Server you get so used to having all tools integrate with each other. E.g. if a requirement is created, it is automatically linked to the change sets that the programmer commits to implement that requirement. This "boundary breaking" between formerly different tools is nearly impossible in the Smalltalk world, but with bigger projects, bigger teams, higher levels of abstraction and so on you need tools which are more than a fancy editor and help you throughout a full software development life cycle.

No useful support for navigating with the keyboard, or supporting platform UI behavior.
While it's true you don't really need an incredible text editor for (well-written) Smalltalk, being able to move around the environment while keeping your hands on the keyboard is quite useful (and in my case, essential to reducing RSI). I just was trying VisualWorks' inspector and the arrow keys didn't even work properly to move up and down a list. When I hit the space bar, I got a walkback. Sigh.

For the Windows world, there is nothing like Dolphin Smalltalk. The IDE is fantastic. Another quality product if you want to try is Visualworks, it works well, has a very fast VM and the documentation is pretty good.
I've used both in the past, there is nothing to fear.

Textual versus Graphical Programming Languages [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am part of a high school robotics team, and there is some debate about which language to use to program our robot. We are choosing between C (or maybe C++) and LabVIEW. There are pros for each language.
C(++):
Widely used
Good preparation for the future (most programming positions require text-based programmers.)
We can expand upon our C codebase from last year
Allows us to better understand what our robot is doing.
LabVIEW
Easier to visualize program flow (blocks and wires, instead of lines of code)
Easier to teach (Supposedly...)
"The future of programming is graphical." (Think so?)
Closer to the Robolab background that some new members may have.
Don't need to intimately know what's going on. Simply tell the module to find the red ball, don't need to know how.
This is a very difficult decision for us, and we've been debating for a while. Based on those pros for each language, and on the experience you've got, what do you think the better option is? Keep in mind that we aren't necessarily going for pure efficiency. We also hope to prepare our programmers for a future in programming.
Also:
Do you think that graphical languages such as LabVEIW are the future of programming?
Is a graphical language easier to learn than a textual language? I think that they should be about equally challenging to learn.
Seeing as we are partailly rooted in helping people learn, how much should we rely on prewritten modules, and how much should we try to write on our own? ("Good programmers write good code, great programmers copy great code." But isn't it worth being a good programmer, first?)
Thanks for the advice!
Edit:
I'd like to emphasize this question more:
The team captain thinks that LabVIEW is better for its ease of learning and teaching. Is that true? I think that C could be taught just as easily, and beginner-level tasks would still be around with C. I'd really like to hear your opinions. Is there any reason that typing while{} should be any more difficult than creating a "while box?" Isn't it just as intuitive that program flows line by line, only modified by ifs and loops, as it is intuitive that the program flows through the wire, only modified by ifs and loops!?
Thanks again!
Edit:
I just realized that this falls under the topic of "language debate." I hope it's okay, because it's about what's best for a specific branch of programming, with certain goals. If it's not... I'm sorry...

Before I arrived, our group (PhD scientists, with little programming background) had been trying to implement a LabVIEW application on-and-off for nearly a year. The code was untidy, too complex (front and back-end) and most importantly, did not work. I am a keen programmer but had never used LabVIEW. With a little help from a LabVIEW guru who could help translate the textual progamming paradigms I knew into LabVIEW concepts it was possible to code the app in a week. The point here is that the basic coding concepts still have to be learnt, the language, even one like LabVIEW, is just a different way of expressing them.
LabVIEW is great to use for what it was originally designed for. i.e. to take data from DAQ cards and display it on-screen perhaps with some minor manipulations in-between. However, programming algorithms is no easier and I would even suggest that it is more difficult. For example, in most procedural languages execution order is generally followed line by line, using pseudo mathematical notation (i.e. y = x*x + x + 1) whereas LabVIEW would implement this using a series of VI's which don't necessarily follow from each other (i.e. left-to-right) on the canvas.
Moreover programming as a career is more than knowing the technicalities of coding. Being able to effectively ask for help/search for answers, write readable code and work with legacy code are all key skills which are undeniably more difficult in a graphical language such as LabVIEW.
I believe some aspects of graphical programming may become mainstream - the use of sub-VIs perfectly embodies the 'black-box' principal of programming and is also used in other language abstractions such as Yahoo Pipes and the Apple Automator - and perhaps some future graphical language will revolutionise the way we program but LabVIEW itself is not a massive paradigm shift in language design, we still have while, for, if flow control, typecasting, event driven programming, even objects. If the future really will be written in LabVIEW, C++ programmer won't have much trouble crossing over.
As a postcript I'd say that C/C++ is more suited to robotics since the students will no doubt have to deal with embedded systems and FPGAs at some point. Low level programming knowledge (bits, registers etc.) would be invaluable for this kind of thing.
#mendicant Actually LabVIEW is used a lot in industry, especially for control systems. Granted NASA unlikely use it for on-board satellite systems but then software developement for space-systems is a whole different ball game...

I've encountered a somewhat similar situation in the research group I'm currently working in. It's a biophysics group, and we're using LabVIEW all over the place to control our instruments. That works absolutely great: it's easy to assemble a UI to control all aspects of your instruments, to view its status and to save your data.
And now I have to stop myself from writing a 5 page rant, because for me LabVIEW has been a nightmare. Let me instead try to summarize some pros and cons:
Disclaimer I'm not a LabVIEW expert, I might say things that are biased, out-of-date or just plain wrong :)
LabVIEW pros
Yes, it's easy to learn. Many PhD's in our group seem to have acquired enough skills to hack away within a few weeks, or even less.
Libraries. This is a major point. You'd have to carefully investigate this for your own situation (I don't know what you need, if there are good LabVIEW libraries for it, or if there are alternatives in other languages). In my case, finding, e.g., a good, fast charting library in Python has been a major problem, that has prevented me from rewriting some of our programs in Python.
Your school may already have it installed and running.
LabVIEW cons
It's perhaps too easy to learn. In any case, it seems no one really bothers to learn best practices, so programs quickly become a complete, irreparable mess. Sure, that's also bound to happen with text-based languages if you're not careful, but IMO it's much more difficult to do things right in LabVIEW.
There tend to be major issues in LabVIEW with finding sub-VIs (even up to version 8.2, I think). LabVIEW has its own way of knowing where to find libraries and sub-VIs, which makes it very easy to completely break your software. This makes large projects a pain if you don't have someone around who knows how to handle this.
Getting LabVIEW to work with version control is a pain. Sure, it can be done, but in any case I'd refrain from using the built-in VC. Check out LVDiff for a LabVIEW diff tool, but don't even think about merging.
(The last two points make working in a team on one project difficult. That's probably important in your case)
This is personal, but I find that many algorithms just don't work when programmed visually. It's a mess.
One example is stuff that is strictly sequential; that gets cumbersome pretty quickly.
It's difficult to have an overview of the code.
If you use sub-VI's for small tasks (just like it's a good practice to make functions that perform a small task, and that fit on one screen), you can't just give them names, but you have to draw icons for each of them. That gets very annoying and cumbersome within only a few minutes, so you become very tempted not to put stuff in a sub-VI. It's just too much of a hassle. Btw: making a really good icon can take a professional hours. Go try to make a unique, immediately understandable, recognizable icon for every sub-VI you write :)
You'll have carpal tunnel within a week. Guaranteed.
#Brendan: hear, hear!
Concluding remarks
As for your "should I write my own modules" question: I'm not sure. Depends on your time constraints. Don't spend time on reinventing the wheel if you don't have to. It's too easy to spend days on writing low-level code and then realize you've run out of time. If that means you choose LabVIEW, go for it.
If there'd be easy ways to combine LabVIEW and, e.g., C++, I'd love to hear about it: that may give you the best of both worlds, but I doubt there are.
But make sure you and your team spend time on learning best practices. Looking at each other's code. Learning from each other. Writing usable, understandable code. And having fun!
And please forgive me for sounding edgy and perhaps somewhat pedantic. It's just that LabVIEW has been a real nightmare for me :)

I think the choice of LabVIEW or not comes down to whether you want to learn to program in a commonly used language as a marketable skill, or just want to get stuff done. LabVIEW enables you to Get Stuff Done very quickly and productively. As others have observed, it doesn't magically free you from having to understand what you're doing, and it's quite possible to create an unholy mess if you don't - although anecdotally, the worst examples of bad coding style in LabVIEW are generally perpetrated by people who are experienced in a text language and refuse to adapt to how LabVIEW works because they 'already know how to program, dammit!'
That's not to imply that LabVIEW programming isn't a marketable skill, of course; just that it's not as mass-market as C++.
LabVIEW makes it extremely easy to manage different things going on in parallel, which you may well have in a robot control situation. Race conditions in code that should be sequential shouldn't be a problem either (i.e. if they are, you're doing it wrong): there are simple techniques for making sure that stuff happens in the right order where necessary - chaining subVI's using the error wire or other data, using notifiers or queues, building a state machine structure, even using LabVIEW's sequence structure if necessary. Again, this is simply a case of taking the time to understand the tools available in LabVIEW and how they work. I don't think the gripe about having to make subVI icons is very well directed; you can very quickly create one containing a few words of text, maybe with a background colour, and that will be fine for most purposes.
'Are graphical languages the way of the future' is a red herring based on a false dichotomy. Some things are well suited to graphical languages (parallel code, for instance); other things suit text languages much better. I don't expect LabVIEW and graphical programming to either go away, or take over the world.
Incidentally, I would be very surprised if NASA didn't use LabVIEW in the space program. Someone recently described on the Info-LabVIEW mailing list how they had used LabVIEW to develop and test the closed loop control of flight surfaces actuated by electric motors on the Boeing 787, and gave the impression that LabVIEW was used extensively in the plane's development. It's also used for real-time control in the Large Hadron Collider!
The most active place currently for getting further information and help with LabVIEW, apart from National Instruments' own site and forums, seems to be LAVA.

This doesn't answer you question directly, but you may want to consider a third option of mixing in an interpreted language. Lua, for example, is already used in the robotics field. It's fast, light-weight and can be configured to run with fixed-point numbers instead of floating-point since most microcontrollers don't have an FPU. Forth is another alternative with similar usage.
It should be pretty easy to write a thin interface layer in C and then let the students loose with interpreted scripts. You could even set it up to allow code to be loaded dynamically without recompiling and flashing a chip. This should reduce the iteration cycle and allow students to learn better by seeing results more quickly.
I'm biased against using visual tools like LabVIEW. I always seem to hit something that doesn't or won't work quite like I want it to do. So, I prefer the absolute control you get with textual code.

LabVIEW's other strength (besides libraries) is concurrency. It's a dataflow language, which means that the runtime can handle concurrency for you. So if you're doing something highly concurrent and don't want to have to do traditional synchronization, LabVIEW can help you there.
The future doesn't belong to graphical languages as they stand today. It belongs to whoever can come up with a representation of dataflow (or another concurrency-friendly type of programming) that's as straightforward as the graphical approach is, but is also parsable by the programmer's own tools.

There is a published study of the topic hosted by National Instruments:
A Study of Graphical vs. Textual Programming for Teaching DSP
It specifically looks at LabVIEW versus MATLAB (as opposed to C).

I think that graphical languages wil always be limited in expressivity compared to textual ones. Compare trying to communicate in visual symbols (e.g., REBUS or sign language) to communicating using words.
For simple tasks, using a graphical language is usually easier but for more intricate logic, I find that graphical languages get in the way.
Another debate implied in this argument, though, is declarative programming vs. imperative. Declarative is usually better for anything where you really don't need the fine-grained control over how something is done. You can use C++ in a declarative way but you would need more work up front to make it so, whereas LABView is designed as a declarative language.
A picture is worth a thousand words but if a picture represents a thousand words that you don't need and you can't change that, then in that case a picture is worthless. Whereas, you can create thousands of pictures using words, specifying every detail and even leading the viewer's focus explicitly.

LabVIEW lets you get started quickly, and (as others have already said) has a massive library of code for doing various test, measurement & control related things.
The single biggest downfall of LabVIEW, though, is that you lose all the tools that programmers write for themselves.
Your code is stored as VIs. These are opaque, binary files. This means that your code really isn't yours, it's LabVIEW's. You can't write your own parser, you can't write a code generator, you can't do automated changes via macros or scripts.
This sucks when you have a 5000 VI app that needs some minor tweak applied universally. Your only option is to go through every VI manually, and heaven help you if you miss a change in one VI off in a corner somewhere.
And yes, since it's binary, you can't do diff/merge/patch like you can with textual languages. This does indeed make working with more than one version of the code a horrific nightmare of maintainability.
By all means, use LabVIEW if you're doing something simple, or need to prototype, or don't plan to maintain your code.
If you want to do real, maintainable programming, use a textual language. You might be slower getting started, but you'll be faster in the long run.
(Oh, and if you need DAQ libraries, NI's got C++ and .Net versions of those, too.)

My first post here :) be gentle ...
I come from an embedded background in the automotive industry and now i'm in the defense industry. I can tell you from experience that C/C++ and LabVIEW are really different beasts with different purposes in mind. C/C++ was always used for the embedded work on microcontrollers because it was compact and compilers/tools were easy to come by. LabVIEW on the other hand was used to drive the test system (along with test stand as a sequencer). Most of the test equipment we used were from NI so LabVIEW provided an environment where we had the tools and the drivers required for the job, along with the support we wanted ..
In terms of ease of learning, there are many many resources out there for C/C++ and many websites that lay out design considerations and example algorithms on pretty much anything you're after freely available. For LabVIEW, the user community's probably not as diverse as C/C++, and it takes a little bit more effort to inspect and compare example code (have to have the right version of LabVIEW etc) ... I found LabVIEW pretty easy to pick up and learn, but there a nuisances as some have mentioned here to do with parallelism and various other things that require a bit of experience before you become aware of them.
So the conclusion after all that? I'd say that BOTH languages are worthwhile in learning because they really do represent two different styles of programming and it is certainly worthwhile to be aware and proficient at both.

Oh my God, the answer is so simple. Use LabView.
I have programmed embedded systems for 10 years, and I can say that without at least a couple months of infrastructure (very careful infrastructure!), you will not be as productive as you are on day 1 with LabView.
If you are designing a robot to be sold and used for the military, go ahead and start with C - it's a good call.
Otherwise, use the system that allows you to try out the most variety in the shortest amount of time. That's LabView.

I love LabVIEW. I would highly recommend it especially if the other remembers have used something similar. It takes a while for normal programmers to get used to it, but the result's are much better if you already know how to program.
C/C++ equals manage your own memory. You'll be swimming in memory links and worrying about them. Go with LabVIEW and make sure you read the documentation that comes with LabVIEW and watch out for race conditions.
Learning a language is easy. Learning how to program is not. This doesn't change even if it's a graphical language. The advantage of Graphical languages is that it is easier to visual what the code will do rather than sit there and decipher a bunch of text.
The important thing is not the language but the programming concepts. It shouldn't matter what language you learn to program in, because with a little effort you should be able to program well in any language. Languages come and go.

Disclaimer: I've not witnessed LabVIEW, but I have used a few other graphical languages including WebMethods Flow and Modeller, dynamic simulation languages at university and, er, MIT's Scratch :).
My experience is that graphical languages can do a good job of the 'plumbing' part of programming, but the ones I've used actively get in the way of algorithmics. If your algorithms are very simple, that might be OK.
On the other hand, I don't think C++ is great for your situation either. You'll spend more time tracking down pointer and memory management issues than you do in useful work.
If your robot can be controlled using a scripting language (Python, Ruby, Perl, whatever), then I think that would be a much better choice.
Then there's hybrid options:
If there's no scripting option for your robot, and you have a C++ geek on your team, then consider having that geek write bindings to map your C++ library to a scripting language. This would allow people with other specialities to program the robot more easily. The bindings would make a good gift to the community.
If LabVIEW allows it, use its graphical language to plumb together modules written in a textual language.

I think that graphical languages might be the language of the future..... for all those adhoc MS Access developers out there. There will always be a spot for the purely textual coders.
Personally, I've got to ask what is the real fun of building a robot if it's all done for you? If you just drop a 'find the red ball' module in there and watch it go? What sense of pride will you have for your accomplishment? Personally, I wouldn't have much. Plus, what will it teach you of coding, or of the (very important) aspect of the software/hardware interface that is critical in robotics?
I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but ask yourself one thing: Do you think that NASA used LabVIEW to code the Mars Rovers? Do you think that anyone truly prominent in robotics is using LabView?
Really, if you ask me, the only thing using cookie cutter things like LabVIEW to build this is going to prepare you for is to be some backyard robot builder and nothing more. If you want something that will give you something more like industry experience, build your own 'LabVIEW'-type system. Build your own find-the-ball module, or your own 'follow-the-line' module. It will be far more difficult, but it will also be way more cool too. :D

You're in High School. How much time do you have to work on this program? How many people are in your group? Do they know C++ or LabView already?
From your question, I see that you know C++ and most of the group does not. I also suspect that the group leader is perceptive enough to notice that some members of the team may be intimidated by a text based programming language. This is acceptable, you're in high school, and these people are normies. I feel as though normal high schoolers will be able to understand LabView more intuitively than C++. I'm guessing most high school students, like the population in general, are scared of a command line. For you there is much less of a difference, but for them, it is night and day.
You are correct that the same concepts may be applied to LabView as C++. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. The key is selecting the right tool for the job. LabView was designed for this kind of application. C++ is much more generic and can be applied to many other kinds of problems.
I am going to recommend LabView. Given the right hardware, you can be up and running almost out-of-the-box. Your team can spend more time getting the robot to do what you want, which is what the focus of this activity should be.
Graphical Languages are not the future of programming; they have been one of the choices available, created to solve certain types of problems, for many years. The future of programming is layer upon layer of abstraction away from machine code. In the future, we'll be wondering why we wasted all this time programming "semantics" over and over.
how much should we rely on prewritten modules, and how much should we try to write on our own?
You shouldn't waste time reinventing the wheel. If there are device drivers available in Labview, use them. You can learn a lot by copying code that is similar in function and tailoring it to your needs - you get to see how other people solved similar problems, and have to interpret their solution before you can properly apply it to your problem. If you blindly copy code, chances of getting it to work are slim. You have to be good, even if you copy code.
Best of luck!

I would suggest you use LabVIEW as you can get down to making the robot what you want to do faster and easier. LabVIEW has been designed with this mind. OfCourse C(++) are great languages, but LabVIEW does what it is supposed to do better than anything else.
People can write really good software in LabVIEW as it provides ample scope and support for that.

There is one huge thing I found negative in using LabVIEW for my applications: Organize design complexity. As a physisist I find Labview great for prototyping, instrument control and mathematical analysis. There is no language in which you get faster and better a result then in LabVIEW. I used LabView since 1997. Since 2005 I switched completely to the .NET framework, since it is easier to design and maintain.
In LabVIEW a simple 'if' structure has to be drawn and uses a lot of space on your graphical design. I just found out that many of our commercial applications were hard to maintain. The more complex the application became, the more difficult it was to read.
I now use text laguages and I am much better in maintaining everything. If you would compare C++ to LabVIEW I would use LabVIEW, but compared to C# it does not win

As allways, it depends.
I am using LabVIEW since about 20 years now and did quite a large kind of jobs, from simple DAQ to very complex visualization, from device controls to test sequencers. If it was not good enough, I for sure would have switched. That said, I started coding Fortran with punchcards and used a whole lot of programming languages on 8-bit 'machines', starting with Z80-based ones. The languages ranged from Assembler to BASIC, from Turbo-Pascal to C.
LabVIEW was a major improvement because of its extensive libraries for data acqusition and analysis. One has, however, to learn a different paradigma. And you definitely need a trackball ;-))

I don't anything about LabView (or much about C/C++), but..
Do you think that graphical languages such as LabVEIW are the future of programming?
No...
Is a graphical language easier to learn than a textual language? I think that they should be about equally challenging to learn.
Easier to learn? No, but they are easier to explain and understand.
To explain a programming language you have to explain what a variable is (which is surprisingly difficult). This isn't a problem with flowgraph/nodal coding tools, like the LEGO Mindstroms programming interface, or Quartz Composer..
For example, in this is a fairly complicated LEGO Mindstroms program - it's very easy to understand what is going in... but what if you want the robot to run the INCREASEJITTER block 5 times, then drive forward for 10 seconds, then try the INCREASEJITTER loop again? Things start getting messy very quickly..
Quartz Composer is a great exmaple of this, and why I don't think graphical languages will ever "be the future"
It makes it very easy to really cool stuff (3D particle effects, with a camera controlled by the average brightness of pixels from a webcam).. but incredibly difficult to do easy things, like iterate over the elements from an XML file, or store that average pixel value into a file.
Seeing as we are partailly rooted in helping people learn, how much should we rely on prewritten modules, and how much should we try to write on our own? ("Good programmers write good code, great programmers copy great code." But isn't it worth being a good programmer, first?)
For learning, it's so much easier to both explain and understand a graphical language..
That said, I would recommend a specialised text-based language language as a progression. For example, for graphics something like Processing or NodeBox. They are "normal" languages (Processing is Java, NodeBox is Python) with very specialised, easy to use (but absurdly powerful) frameworks ingrained into them..
Importantly, they are very interactive languages, you don't have to write hundreds of lines just to get a circle onscreen.. You just type oval(100, 200, 10, 10) and press the run button, and it appears! This also makes them very easy to demonstrate and explain.
More robotics-related, even something like LOGO would be a good introduction - you type "FORWARD 1" and the turtle drives forward one box.. Type "LEFT 90" and it turns 90 degrees.. This relates to reality very simply. You can visualise what each instruction will do, then try it out and confirm it really works that way.
Show them shiney looking things, they will pickup the useful stuff they'd learn from C along the way, if they are interested or progress to the point where they need a "real" language, they'll have all that knowledge, rather than run into the syntax-error and compiling brick-wall..

It seems that if you are trying to prepare our team for a future in programming that C(++) ma be the better route. The promise of general programming languages that are built with visual building blocks has never seemed to materialize and I am beginning to wonder if they ever will. It seems that while it can be done for specific problem domains, once you get into trying to solve many general problems a text based programming language is hard to beat.
At one time I had sort of bought into the idea of executable UML but it seems that once you get past the object relationships and some of the process flows UML would be a pretty miserable way to build an app. Imagine trying to wire it all up to a GUI. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong but so far it seems unlikely we'll be point and click programming anytime soon.

I started with LabVIEW about 2 years ago and now use it all the time so may be biased but find it ideal for applications where data acquisition and control are involved.
We use LabVIEW mainly for testing where we take continuous measurements and control gas valves and ATE enclosures. This involves both digital and analogue input and outputs with signal analysis routines and process control all running from a GUI. By breaking down each part into subVIs we are able to reconfigure the tests with the click and drag of the mouse.
Not exactly the same as C/C++ but a similar implementation of measurement, control and analysis using Visual BASIC appears complex and hard to maintain by comparision.
I think the process of programming is more important than the actual coding language and you should follow the style guidelines for a graphical programming language. LabVIEW block diagrams show the flow of data (Dataflow programming) so it should be easy to see potential race conditions although I've never had any problems. If you have a C codebase then building it into a dll will allow LabVIEW to call it directly.

There are definitely merits to both choices; however, since your domain is an educational experience I think a C/C++ solution would most benefit the students. Graphical programming will always be an option but simply does not provide the functionality in an elegant manner that would make it more efficient to use than textual programming for low-level programming. This is not a bad thing - the whole point of abstraction is to allow a new understanding and view of a problem domain. The reason I believe many may be disappointed with graphical programming though is that, for any particular program, the incremental gain in going from programming in C to graphical is not nearly the same as going from assembly to C.
Knowledge of graphical programming would benefit any future programmer for sure. There will probably be opportunities in the future that only require knowledge of graphical programming and perhaps some of your students could benefit from some early experience with it. On the other hand, a solid foundation in fundamental programming concepts afforded by a textual approach will benefit all of your students and surely must be the better answer.

The team captain thinks that LabVIEW
is better for its ease of learning and
teaching. Is that true?
I doubt that would be true for any single language, or paradigm. LabView could surely be easier for people with electronics engineering background; making programs in it is "simply" drawing wires. Then again, such people might already be exposed to programming, as well.
One essential difference - apart from from the graphic - is that LV is demand based (flow) programming. You start from the outcome and tell, what is needed to get to it. Traditional programming tends to be imperative (going the other way round).
Some languages can provide the both. I crafted a multithreading library for Lua recently (Lanes) and it can be used for demand-based programming in an otherwise imperative environment. I know there are successful robots run mostly in Lua out there (Crazy Ivan at Lua Oh Six).

Have you had a look at the Microsoft Robotics Studio?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/robotics/default.aspx
It allows for visual programming (VPL):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb483047.aspx
as well as modern languages such as C#.
I encourage you to at least take a look at the tutorials.

My gripe against Labview (and Matlab in this respect) is that if you plan on embedding the code in anything other than x86 (and Labview has tools to put Labview VIs on ARMs) then you'll have to throw as much horsepower at the problem as you can because it's inefficient.
Labview is a great prototyping tool: lots of libraries, easy to string together blocks, maybe a little difficult to do advanced algorithms but there's probably a block for what you want to do. You can get functionality done quickly. But if you think you can take that VI and just put it on a device you're wrong. For instance, if you make an adder block in Labview you have two inputs and one output. What is the memory usage for that? Three variables worth of data? Two? In C or C++ you know, because you can either write z=x+y or x+=y and you know exactly what your code is doing and what the memory situation is. Memory usage can spike quickly especially because (as others have pointed out) Labview is highly parallel. So be prepared to throw more RAM than you thought at the problem. And more processing power.
In short, Labview is great for rapid prototyping but you lose too much control in other situations. If you're working with large amounts of data or limited memory/processing power then use a text-based programming language so you can control what goes on.

People always compare labview with C++ and day "oh labview is high level and it has so much built in functionality try acquiring data doing a dfft and displaying the data its so easy in labview try it in C++".
Myth 1: It's hard to get anything done with C++ its because its so low level and labview has many things already implemented.
The problem is if you are developing a robotic system in C++ you MUST use libraries like opencv , pcl .. ect and you would be even more smarter if you use a software framework designed for building robotic systems like ROS (robot operating system). Therefore you need to use a full set of tools. Infact there are more high level tools available when you use, ROS + python/c++ with libraries such as opencv and pcl. I have used labview robotics and frankly commonly used algorithms like ICP are not there and its not like you can use other libraries easily now.
Myth2: Is it easier to understand graphical programming languages
It depends on the situation. When you are coding a complicated algorithm the graphical elements will take up valuable screen space and it will be difficult to understand the method. To understand labview code you have to read over an area that is O(n^2) complexity in code you just read top to bottom.
What if you have parallel systems. ROS implements a graph based architecture based on subcriber/publisher messages implemented using callback and its pretty easy to have multiple programs running and communicating. Having individual parallel components separated makes it easier to debug. For instance stepping through parallel labview code is a nightmare because control flow jumps form one place to another. In ROS you don't explicitly 'draw out your archietecture like in labview, however you can still see it my running the command ros run rqt_graph ( which will show all connected nodes)
"The future of programming is graphical." (Think so?)
I hope not, the current implementation of labview does not allow coding using text-based methods and graphical methods. ( there is mathscript , however this is incredibly slow)
Its hard to debug because you cant hide the parallelism easily.
Its hard to read labview code because there you have to look over so much area.
Labview is great for data aq and signal processing but not experimental robotics, because most of the high level components like SLAM (simultaneous localisation and mapping), point cloud registration, point cloud processing ect are missing. Even if they do add these components and they are easy to integrate like in ROS, because labview is proprietary and expensive they will never keep up with the open source community.
In summary if labview is the future for mechatronics i am changing my career path to investment banking... If i can't enjoy my work i may as well make some money and retire early...

Resources