No, that is not gonna happen. Java is gonna die eventually of old age many many years from now.
I will share the reasoning behind my statement. Let’s first look at some metrics.
Language popularity status as of May 2008
For this I am gonna use the TIOBE index (tiobe.com) and the nice graphs at langpop.com. I know lots of people don’t like them because their statistics are based on search engine results but I think they are a reasonable fair indicator of popularity.
Facts from the TIOBE index:
What I find significant here is the huge share the “C like syntax” languages have.
C (15.292) + C++ (10.484) + Java (20.176) + C# (3.963) = 49.915%
This means 4 languages get half of all the attention on the web.
If we add PHP (10.637) here (somehow uses a similar syntax) we get 60.552%
As a result we can extract:
Reason number 1: Syntax is very important because it builds on previous knowledge. Also similar syntax means similar concepts. Programmers have to make less effort to learn the new syntax, can reuse the old concepts and thus they can concentrate on understanding the new concepts.
Let’s look at a group of 10 challengers:
Python (4.613) + Ruby (2.851) + Lisp/Scheme (0.449) + Lua (0.393) + SmallTalk (0.138) +
Haskell (0.137) + Groovy (0.131) + Erlang (0.110) + Caml (0.090) + Scala (0.073) = 8.985%
This is less than the attention Visual Basic gets: 10.782% and leads us to…
Reason number 2: Too much noise is distracting. Programmers are busy and learning 10 languages to the level where they can evaluate them and make an educated decision is too much effort. The fact that most of these languages have a different syntax and introduce different (sometimes radically different) concepts doesn’t help either.
Looking at the trend for the last 7 years we can see a pretty flat evolution in popularity for most of the languages. There are a few exceptions like the decline of Perl but nothing really is earth shattering. There are seasonal variations but in long term nothing seems to change.
This shows that while various languages catch the mind of the programmer for a short time, they are put back on the shelf pretty fast. This might be caused by the lack of opportunity to use them in real life projects. Most of the programmers in the world work on ongoing projects.
Reason number 3: Lack of pressure on the programmers to switch. The market is pretty stable, the existing languages work pretty well and the management doesn’t push programmers to learn new languages.
Number of new projects started
Looking at another site that does language popularity analysis, langpop.com, we see a slightly different view but the end result is almost the same from the point of view of challenger languages.
What I found interesting here was the analysis regarding new projects started in various languages. The sources for information are Freshmeat.net and Google Code. The results show a clear preference for C/C++/Java with Python getting some attention.
Reason number 4: Challenger languages don’t seem to catch momentum in order to create an avalanche of new projects started with them. This can be again due to the fact that they spread thin when they are evaluated. They are too many.
Other interesting charts at langpop.com are those about books on programming languages at amazon.com and about language discussions statistics. Book writers write about subjects that have a chance to sell. On the other hand a lot of discussion about all theses new languages takes place online. One thing I noticed in these discussion is the attitude the supporters of certain languages have. There is a lot of elitism and concentration on what is wrong with Java instead of pointing to what their language of choice brings useful and on creating good tutorials for people wanting to attempt a switch.
Reason number 5: Challenger languages communities don’t do a good job at attracting programmers from established languages. Telling to somebody why she is wrong will most likely create a counter reaction not interest.
Let’s look now at what is happening on the job market. I used the tools offered by indeed.com and I compared a bunch of languages to produce this graph:
Reason number 6: There is no great incentive to switch to one of the challenger languages since gaining this skill is not likely to translate into income in the near future.
Well, I looked at all these statistics and I extracted some reasons, but what are the qualities a language needs and what are the external conditions that will make a programming language popular?
How and when does a language become popular
- A new language has to gain the support of a big number of programmers using, at the moment, a different language. To do this it has to leverage things those programmers already know. (C++ built on C, Java built on C++, C# built on C++, Java and Delphi)
- A new language stands a chance when there are some pressing problems with the existing languages. For example Java managed to cover two problems plaguing the C/C++ world: complexity (C++) and memory management (C/C++). These two were real problems because projects plagued with bugs created by complexity and with memory leaks.
- A changing market can also help a lot. Java managed to ride the Internet growth. They lost the browser battle, applets are not very used, but the switch to the server market was a huge success.
- Based on history we can see how all successful languages had very powerful sponsors. C/C++/Java/C# are all creations of big companies like AT&T, Sun, Microsoft. All these new languages are born in universities and research institutes or are coming from very specific niche domains.
- A popular language needs to be generic and applicable in most of the domains if not all.
- Popular languages usually succeed fast. They have to avoid getting “old”. When programmers see a language around for many years without a growing market share they start to feel just okay not learning it.
- Popular languages have cool names
So we can draw more reasons:
Reason number 7: The new languages don’t introduce an earth shattering improvement in the life of most of the programmers and projects.
Reason number 8: There is no killer application on the horizon. This means new languages compete in old markets with established players.
Reason number 9: None of these new languages has a powerful sponsor with the will and the money to push them on the market. Powerful sponsor translates in investment in the libraries – see Java. All these new languages are born in universities and research institutes or are coming from very specific niche domains.
Reason number 10: Most of these languages lingered around too much without stepping decisively into the big arena.
For one’s curiosity here is a list of talked about languages with their birth date:
Ruby (mid 1990s), Python (1991), Lisp (1958), Scheme (1970s), Lua (1993), Smalltalk (1969-1980), Haskell (1990), Erlang (1987), Caml (1985), OCaml (1996), Groovy (2003), Scala (2003)
Compare this with older successful languages:
C (1972), C++ (1983), Java (1995), C# (2001), BASIC (1964), Pascal (1970), FORTRAN (1957), Ada (1983), COBOL (1959)
It is pretty obvious most of these “new” languages lost the train to success.
Why many of the new languages will never be popular
- I already mentioned syntax a few times
- Some languages made strange mistakes. For example Python is a great language but the idea of using indentation as block demarcation really is a cannon ball chained to its feet. While most of the pythonistas defend this idea with a lot of energy, the truth is this feature makes it really a dangerous tool in big, world wide distributed projects – and most important enterprise projects are big and distributed. For a better analysis from somebody with real experience read this: Python indentation considered boneheaded
- Some languages have very difficult to “get” concepts. For example most of the supporters of functional languages are proud of how concise statements are in their language. This is not really useful for somebody used to think procedural or object oriented. If the only gain from binding and twisting your mind is typing a few less lines then any experience programmer will tell you that this is not the main activity. Writing the first version is just a small part of the life cycle of a project. Typing the code is even smaller compared with the design time. From the second version the game changes dramatically. Maintainability is way more important. Also very important is to be able to add features and to refactor the code. Readability is paramount from version two, and for both development and support teams.
- The nature of a part of these languages makes it difficult to build really good tools to support them. One very useful feature is the automatic refactoring provided by advanced tools like Eclipse.
Reason number 11: “Features” that look and are dangerous for big projects. Since there are not a lot of big projects written in any of these languages it is hard to make an unbiased evaluation. But bias is in the end a real obstacle for their adoption.
Reason number 12: Unnatural concepts (for majority of programmers) raise the entry level. Functional languages make you write code like mathematical equations. But how many people actually love math so much to write everything in it? Object oriented languages provide a great advantage: they let programmers think about the domain they want to model, not about the language or the machine.
Reason number 13: Lack of advanced tools for development and refactoring cripple the programmer and the development teams when faced with big amounts of lines of code.
How would a real Java challenger look like
- The successful challenger should try to build on existing knowledge and infrastructure. Scala is actually getting on this road. Running on the JVM and being able to reuse Java libraries is a huge advantage. Using a similar syntax to Java is also a great decision that might push Scala into mainstream.
- The challenger needs a killer application. Erlang might have the killer application with distributed computing features. But distributed computing is not that mainstream yet, even on the server market.
- It has to be born inside a powerful company or to be adopted by a big sponsor. All the challenger languages are lacking a sponsor at this point. Sun seems to be interested in some of the scripting languages. But I am not sure if their attention is gonna help any of these languages or is gonna distract and kill them. And Sun already has Java so we can suspect they are trying to actually promote Java through these languages – see the scripting engine
Pick me, pick mee, pick meeee!!!
Looking at all those (smart) languages and all the heated discussions that surround them makes me think about the donkey from Shrek yelling “Pick me! Pick mee!! Pick meeee!!!”. In the end only one can be the real winner even if in a limited part of the market.
For scripting Python has potential, huge potential. But it has to do something about the indentation fetish to be able penetrate the big project market. Without that the web looks PHPish.
Ruby is elegant but alien. I saw its syntax described like “the bastard son of Perl” (just google it). Its new popularity is based not on the language itself but on a framework (Rails) that can be reproduced in other languages even if with less elegance. Struts 2 attempts just that.
Scripting languages (Groovy, Rhino…) on top of Java and the JVM are interesting but they will never be primadonnas. They cannot compete with Java because they are slower. They can be useful when scripting a Java application
is a desirable feature (VBA is an excellent tool for Microsoft products and other Windows products and it pushed Visual Basic up the scale).
Scala has a lot of good cards. Building on the JVM, familiar syntax, huge inherited library, can be as fast as Java on the JVM… But where is the sponsor and where is the killer application in a shifting market?
The danger for Java doesn’t come from outside. None of these new (actually most of them are pretty old) languages have the potential to displace Java.
The danger for Java comes from inside and it is caused by too many “features” making their way into the language and transforming if from a language that wanted to keep only the essential features of C++ into a trash box for features and concepts from all languages.
In the end I want to make it clear that I am not advocating against any of those languages. There is TAO in all of them. I actually find them interesting, cool and useful as exercise for my brain, when I have time. I recommend to every programmer to look around from time to time and try to understand what is going on the language market.
This article is part of a series of opinions and rants:
- 1. 13 reasons for UML’s descent into darkness
- 2. 13 reasons why Ruby, Python and the gang will push Java to dieâ€¦ of old age