[HN Gopher] Top Programming Languages 2025
___________________________________________________________________
Top Programming Languages 2025
Author : jnord
Score : 261 points
Date : 2025-09-23 23:42 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| hackthemack wrote:
| I was pondering similar thoughts. Will LLM assistants ossify our
| current programming languages? My limited testing seems to show
| LLM assistants do well the more popular the language is (more
| data in its training), so is the hurdle for adoption of something
| new going to get even higher?
|
| In an alternate universe, if LLM only had object oriented code to
| train on, would anyone push programming forward in other styles?
| mock-possum wrote:
| Of course it's always been easier to find talent when working
| in more popular languages. That's the big risk you take when
| you choose the road less traveled.
| AstroBen wrote:
| easier to find people, not talent. Some tiny niche languages
| have a very high proportion of talented developers
| christophilus wrote:
| I recently picked up Hare, which is quite obscure, and Claude
| was helpful as a better-- albeit hallucinogenic-- Google. I
| think LLMs may not lead to as much ossification as I'd
| originally feared.
| fuzztester wrote:
| What is your impression of Hare?
|
| I had looked at it recently while checking out C-like
| languages. (Others included Odin and C3.) I read some of the
| Hare docs and examples, and had watched a video about it on
| Kris Jenkins' Developer Voices channel, which was where I got
| to know about it.
| christophilus wrote:
| I like it much more than Zig, and while I like Odin's
| syntax more, Hare is more focused on the types of tooling I
| want to build, so I find Hare's stdlib preferable. Give it
| a spin. It's a simple language.
| fuzztester wrote:
| Interesting, thanks!
| fuzztester wrote:
| I started reading the Hare tutorial again because of your
| comment. Looks good so far.
|
| Just one note for anyone else wanting to check it out:
|
| There are a few sections in the tutorial which are empty
| and marked as TODO. E.g. "Using default values" and
| "Handling allocation failure" (the empty sections seen so
| far, there may be others below).
|
| Still going to check the language out.
| zenmac wrote:
| >My limited testing seems to show LLM assistants do well the
| more popular the language is (more data in its training), so is
| the hurdle for adoption of something new going to get even
| higher
|
| Not only that they also tend to answer using the the more
| popular languages or tool event when it is NOT necessary. And
| when you call it out on it, it will respond with something
| like:
|
| "you are absolutely right, this is not necessary and
| potentially confusing. Let me provide you with a cleaner, more
| appropriate setup...."
|
| Why doesn't it just respond that the first time? And the code
| it provided works, but very convoluted. if wasn't checked
| carefully by an experienced dev person to ask the right
| question one would never get the second answer, and then that
| vibe code will just end up in git repo and deployed all over
| the place.
|
| Got the feeling some big corp may just paid some money to have
| their plugin/code to on the first answer even when it is NOT
| necessary.
|
| This could be very problematic, I'm sure people in advertising
| are just all licking their chops on how they can capitalized on
| that. If one thing currently ad industry is bad, wait until
| that is infused into all the models.
|
| We really need ways to
|
| 1. Train our own models in the open, with weight and the data
| it is trained on. Kinda like the reproducible built process
| that Nix is doing for building repos.
|
| 2. Ways to debug the model on inference time. The <think> tag
| is great, and I suspect not everything is transparent in that
| process.
|
| Is there something equivalent of formal verification for model
| inference?
| raincole wrote:
| > is the hurdle for adoption of something new going to get even
| higher?
|
| Yes.
|
| But today the only two reasons to use niche languages are[0] 1)
| you have existing codebases or libraries in that language 2)
| you're facing quite domain-specific problems where the domain
| experts all use that language.
|
| In either cases you won't just use Java because LLMs are good
| at Java.
|
| [0]: besides for fun or 'for resume'
| maroon_unperson wrote:
| LLMs could also ease adoption of new languages by making hiring
| less of a barrier to using something more niche. It becomes
| easier for someone to hit the ground running and be productive
| even if they still need to put the time in to become an expert.
|
| Instead I find myself more concerned with which virtual machine
| or compiler tool chain the language operates against. Does it
| need to ship with a VM or does it compile to a binary? Do I want
| garbage collection for this project?
|
| Maybe in that way the decision moves up an abstaction layer the
| same way we largely moved away from assembly languages and caring
| about specific processor features.
| system2 wrote:
| If you ask Claude or ChatGPT, they both say Python is their
| preferred building tool. It will push Python further.
| mynegation wrote:
| I totally expected JavaScript to get the 2nd spot but looks like
| TypeScript pulled the votes away. I personally consider
| JavaScript and TypeScript to be close enough for their numbers to
| be added up.
| channel_t wrote:
| I agree, I think it makes most sense to add them up to be the
| true #2.
| sprobertson wrote:
| And #1 on the jobs chart
| rootlocus wrote:
| Then you should probably add kotlin and java together as
| well. They share the same purpose, use the same VM, usually
| live in the same project, have native compatibility, are used
| with the same frameworks, etc.
| whstl wrote:
| True. Pretty much every Kotlin recruitment message I got
| was because of past Java experience, so the job market
| seems to agree with you.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Especially considering Kotlin is used as a drop in
| replacement for Java in a lot of projects. Especially when
| using the type of frameworks often associated with Java
| (Spring, Quarkus, etc.).
|
| Personally, I think statistics like this are biased towards
| the median of the past few decades and do not necessarily
| tell much about the future; other than that things
| apparently move very slowly and people are mostly
| conservative and stuck in their ways.
|
| Cobol is still in that list. Right above Elixir, which
| apparently is a bit of a niche language. Kotlin has only
| been around for about 15 years, and the 1.0 release was
| actually only nine years ago. Java was released 30 years
| ago and it's been dominant in enterprise development for 25
| years now. So, no surprise that Java is nearer to the top.
|
| Python is surprising but it's been around for quite long
| and gained a lot of popularity outside the traditional
| computer science crowd. I know biochemists, physicists,
| etc. that all use python. And it's a great language for
| beginners obviously. It's not so much that people switched
| to python but that it is driving the growth of the overall
| programmer community. Most new programmers use python these
| days and that explains why it is the #1.
|
| Javascript has had a virtual monopoly on basically anything
| that runs in a browser, which is of course the most popular
| way to distribute code these days. Especially since plugins
| were deprecated and things like applets, flash, etc.
| disappeared around fifteen years ago. Anything that ran on
| the web was either written in Javascript; or
| transpiled/compiled to it. WASM is starting to change that
| but it's early days.
|
| What the past 25 years tell us is that things definitely
| change. But very slowly. C++ still outranks Javascript.
| That's because it's mostly browsers where it is used. It's
| a lot less popular for other things.
|
| I like Kotlin, so I'm biased. But it's obviously not the
| most popular thing by a long shot. But popular doesn't mean
| good. I actually like python for small unimportant things.
| But I reach for Kotlin if I need to do it properly. I used
| to reach for Java. But Kotlin simply became the better tool
| for the job; at least for me. I even prefer it over
| typescript and I do occasionally use it for web frontend
| development. The transpiler is pretty good. And there's a
| WASM compiler too and Compose for WASM just entered beta.
| Kotlin seems future proof and it seems to be growing into
| wider adoption. There are a few million programmers around
| by Jetbrains counts. It's not nothing.
| skydhash wrote:
| C++ is still very popular where you need raw perfomance
| but not so raw as C. Especially with the fact that python
| is used as a more user friendly interface.
| wiseowise wrote:
| JS is a valid TS, Kotlin is not a valid Java (only at a
| bytecode level, but then you might as well combine all JVM
| languages).
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| > Kotlin is not a valid Java
|
| But you can easily have both of them in the same project
| (e.g. when slowly moving to kotlin) and have them
| interop.
| mi_lk wrote:
| That applies to all JVM languages no?
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Java devs at large are generally not excited about
| writing Scala.
| boobsbr wrote:
| There are dozens of us! Dozens!
| nunobrito wrote:
| Doesn't really bring benefit. With Java you are more
| quickly useful in C++ and can write server apps without
| fuss. Very little benefit in using a different language
| when Java literally does the same and is used everywhere
| else.
| wiseowise wrote:
| It doesn't make it valid Java. You can paste JS verbatim
| to TS file and it will work.
| latexr wrote:
| You can also easily have Objective-C, C, and C++ in the
| same Swift project and have them interop. That's a
| feature of Swift. But adding their numbers together
| wouldn't make sense.
| rootlocus wrote:
| But TS is not valid JS and nobody uses TS because they
| can write JS in a file with a different extension. You
| also get 0 benefit from running `tsc` on a JS file. You
| could argue that C is valid C++ so there's no reason to
| discern them either.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Add Scala in there, while you're at it!
| andersmurphy wrote:
| Don't forget Jruby and Groovy.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Touche!
| andersmurphy wrote:
| And Clojure and Scala. So really Clojure is number 2. :-)
| alkonaut wrote:
| You could make a separate graph with "platform" or "language
| family" so you do js/ts, jvm, .net/clr, C/C++ etc.
|
| That one is perhaps more interesting from an industry/jobs
| trend perspective whereas the TS vs JS trend is also
| interesting on its own.
| wiseowise wrote:
| JS is a valid TS, so there's no reason to discern them.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Agreed. There's a few consolidations I'd prefer, including
| BEAM-based languages as one.
| cies wrote:
| Then also app up Java&Kotlin and C&C++.
|
| Ooh, then JS&TS are not number two!
| daft_pink wrote:
| It's amazing where java is.
| brap wrote:
| If you're working in a large team, and you're not locked into
| the MS stack, and you're not doing anything that needs to be
| super performant... Java is, by far, your best option.
|
| The tooling and ecosystem aren't great compared to some of
| these languages, but Java itself can be pretty damn good.
|
| I used to be a hater many years ago but I've since grown to
| love it.
| the_af wrote:
| What is wrong with Java's tooling and ecosystem? Asking
| because it used to be the default a decade or so ago, with a
| vibrant ecosystem, so I find your remark surprising.
| brap wrote:
| Maven/Gradle don't come close to the simplicity of npm, for
| example
| raddan wrote:
| Publishing a Maven package is also excruciatingly
| complicated. By contrast, NPM is actually too easy. I
| suspect that we see fewer supply chain attacks in the
| Java ecosystem because attackers are like "you know
| what.. never mind."
| clumsysmurf wrote:
| Gradle keeps on improving. I use it for Android, and even
| though it is complex, and then add the Android Gradle
| Plugin complexity on top of that, I would not trade it
| for the iOS build system.
|
| One of my complaints with Gradle is that if you write a
| plugin (Java) it shares the classpath with other plugins.
| You might find some other plugin depending on some old
| version of a transitive dependency.
| theflyinghorse wrote:
| They are just different. I mean, setting up monorepo is
| far easier with maven over npm. Besides, maven offers
| basically cookie cutter project organization where every
| maven project looks like every other maven project. As
| for other tooling JVM is just better than JS ecosystem.
| Definitely more complex, but also more powerful
| pjmlp wrote:
| What simplicity?!?
| gf000 wrote:
| I wouldn't call "3643 packages installed, 1200
| vulnerabilities" for a hello world "simple".
|
| People have their problems with Maven but unless it's
| some overly complicated legacy project (where npm just
| explodes I guess? Like I have hD windows machines get
| frozen from deleting the node_modules folder), it just
| works and you just give a list of dependencies.
| runevault wrote:
| I used to use clojure, but one of the reasons I stopped was
| I personally found tools like Maven cumbersome to work
| with. I admit that was 8 years ago or so, so there's a
| chance it got better, but once people are driven away by
| tooling issues it takes a lot to convince them to give an
| ecosystem another chance.
|
| An example of this ossification of understanding is how
| people still think dotnet is Windows only because they
| stopped caring before Core/Modern dotnet became a thing
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| And you can code Groovy on top of it, still my favorite
| programming lang.
|
| I too would like some illustration of why the tooling
| (Intellij, etc) is insufficient. Maybe gradle as a build
| system? Although I have to say with LLMs, gradle build
| scripting is a LOT easier to "build" out.
| gt0 wrote:
| Agree, the build systems around Java have become absurdly
| complicated, but as an overall offering Java and JVM remains
| pretty compelling for lots of work, particular on a large
| team, as you say, where Java can be the "least bad option" in
| terms of getting a diverse group of people to learn it.
| armSixtyFour wrote:
| huh. This seems to suggest there are more Rust jobs than Ruby.
| Wild considering how insanely popular Ruby was 10 years ago.
| fuzztester wrote:
| Ruby became popular mainly because of Rails, which has gone
| down somewhat in popularity in recent years. That may be why
| Ruby is less popular now than it was 10 years ago. Also, they
| (Ruby and Rails) got popular much before 10 years ago, like
| around 2006 / 2007, when the Web 2.0 wave was starting. I had
| worked on a couple of dot-com projects in Ruby on Rails at that
| time, that is how I know.
| zenmac wrote:
| And Python got popular cause of LLM AI thing. It is a shame,
| cause it is quite slow. I had some good time with jython back
| in the 2 days, but really wished something more elegant
| (nim/rust/ocaml) has taken over this AI thing instead of
| python.
|
| One thing is for sure, don't get tight down to one language
| cause it is popular today. Go with whatever make sense for
| you and your project.
| js8 wrote:
| > And Python got popular cause of LLM AI thing.
|
| Not really, Python got popular in 2000s because it was the
| only sane of the three choices - Perl, Python, TCL. You
| must be young.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The magic word for Python's fame is Zope, the respective
| article on Dr. Dobbs, until then I never noticed it.
| vkazanov wrote:
| Zope is sooo 2000s! This is the first time ever I see
| somebody mention the framework I've spent a few years of
| my life with!
| js8 wrote:
| There has been several other events like that (Django,
| Pandas and data science..). I don't think Python's
| popularity can be ascribed to any single event, it just
| happens to be a language that is reasonably close to
| pseudocode with an excellently thought-out (I mean best
| in the industry) standard library. Python is practical,
| first and foremost. That's why it won, unlike other
| languages it doesn't really have an ideological agenda.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Zope predates all of those, and slowly as you say people
| got interested and started using it for other stuff, like
| being a better Perl.
|
| Python has an agenda as well, Guido has said multiple
| times it was a language designed for teaching
| programming, and one of the reasons Zen of Python came
| early on.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Before AI, Python was still extremely popular for any sort
| of data science (possibly because of numpy first, then
| pandas, but I don't claim any historical knowledge here).
| And independent to that it was, before the raise of server
| side JS, one of the most popular server side web languages
| (probably still is).
|
| Also around the mid '00 it started replacing perl as the
| unix scripting language of choice.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Ruby was super hyped 10 years ago. Now all the hype-based
| programmers are on to TypeScript and Rust... Ruby is IMO at a
| nice level now; able to avoid some of the worst ideas that hype
| based programmers like to inflict on people, but still popular
| enough...
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| I have heard from multiple sources that Ruby is still very
| popular in the start-up ecosystem in Japan.
| dismalaf wrote:
| From what I've seen it's popular for startups in general.
| I'm using it for mine... More YC companies use Rails than
| you'd expect relative to it's "popularity". And yeah, in
| Japan Ruby is homegrown tech and the community seems pretty
| big there.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| This just doesn't feel true to me. I've been looking for a Rust
| job for years, and the only thing I can ever find is crypto
| scam listings. Meanwhile the Ruby on Rails jobs are plentiful
| and from real companies.
| Perz1val wrote:
| I speculate it goes this way: 1. Some people at a Java
| company get excited about Rust 2. They write some
| microservices in Rust. They're now having "Rust jobs" 3. The
| company hires more Java devs to replace the people that now
| maintain the Rust side of things 4. When in need there are
| internal shuffles to replace those Rust devs
|
| It can't go forever, but as far as I can tell the usage in
| corporate has started not long ago. You'll have Rust jobs,
| but they'll be the same shit as Java jobs. There was a study
| done like a year ago that showed across the board decline in
| developer satisfaction with all the "new and shiny" JS
| frameworks. I 100% think that when companies will inevitably
| start hiring people to maintain those legacy Rust "internal
| sideprojects" the same will happen. It is when a not driven
| by passion workforce, people who complete taks and features
| instead of doing the "provably correct thing" have a go that
| technologies get vibe checked. We will see which way it goes.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| It is interesting that your speculation chose this path:
| Java to Rust. That surprises me! I would have much more
| likely to say, C, C++, or Go to Rust. Was your choice of
| Java arbitrary, or is there a deeper reason?
| dysoco wrote:
| imho web shops looking for the new shiny have tried to
| use Rust in search of more type-safety or performance (or
| to look cool)
|
| Companies using C, C++ or even Go probably are less keen
| on switching stacks for the sake of it.
| cosmic_quanta wrote:
| Well I'm happy that Haskell registers at all! At a level similar
| to ... LabView (oof). The article proper is rather uninteresting,
| I'm afraid.
| chamomeal wrote:
| It's grating to see Haskell compared to labview, regardless of
| context lol
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Haskell is a fun language...
|
| LabView is a kick in the pants...
|
| I'd wager it is the installed base keeping LabView on life
| support. =3
| 7thaccount wrote:
| Labview seems like a pain (I haven't used it), but I guess
| it's super useful for some uses. I recall SpaceX uses it
| for controlling launches. It comes with models for all
| manner of hardware.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| NI has niche instrumentation product lines that have been
| around for some time.
|
| Yet, the modern licensing model jettisoned a lot of their
| long time proponents. Like many things in life, most
| problems were non-technical in nature.
|
| SpaceX is an interesting company, and it made some unique
| design choices. =3
| hooskerdu wrote:
| I really loved LabView
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| NI rarely made established software better after a
| company acquisition.
|
| Generally, IT and Engineering agreed to deprecate their
| product lines off critical systems about 2 minutes after
| the deal went through. =3
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > but I guess it's super useful for some uses
|
| It comes with device interfaces (not exactly drivers, but
| some times it has drivers too).
| zeeqeen wrote:
| All right, I even never heard of Labview programming
| language, haha..
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Haskell at least is fun.
|
| My favorite Julia also made the list this year... nonzero users
| means there is hope for fun languages yet.
|
| With the new Intel+NVIDIA RTX SoC deal, we can expect Python
| and C++ to dominate that list in the next few years. =3
| rekenaut wrote:
| Dozens of us use Julia. Dozens!!
| pjmlp wrote:
| A few more actually, even though it gets ignored in most HN
| discussions,
|
| https://juliahub.com/case-studies
| dtgriscom wrote:
| Yessss! Shell scripts at number nine!
| Qxliangg wrote:
| Pretty sweet,i use it almost everyday,which brings me a lot of
| fun.
| kace91 wrote:
| As a backend dev (mostly working in fintech) I feel weirdly
| unable to find a target language to move to.
|
| After working with Node and Ruby for a while I really miss a
| static type system. - Typescript was limited by its option to
| allow non strictness.
|
| Nothing catches my eye, as it's either Java/.Net and its
| enterprisey companies or Go, which might not be old but feels
| like it is, by design. Rust sounds fun, but its usecases don't
| align much with my background.
|
| Any advice?
| TheDong wrote:
| Take a page from janestreet's book: use ocaml.
|
| Rust is also a general purpose language, there's no reason you
| can't use it for just about any problem space.
| misja111 wrote:
| I tried ocaml last year (I knew some Haskell and Scala
| already) and it was hell. The language itself was pretty,
| that's true. But the schism between Ocaml's stdlib and Jane
| Street's core lib was incredibly frustrating.
|
| I guess when you're working at Jane Street, use only their
| core lib and you get some proper onboarding, things could
| work great. However you're programming very much in a niche
| community then.
| clumsysmurf wrote:
| I have the same dilemma: a strongly typed / modern language
| with good tooling / library support. I'm also considering
| Kotlin / Gleam. With Kotlin, practically speaking, we're
| talking JVM again, along with its resource requirements.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| C# is the right answer here.
| npalli wrote:
| C++ of course. Backend and Fintech.
| zmz88 wrote:
| Gleam?
| dismalaf wrote:
| Fintech should have lots of C++ jobs no? They also seem to use
| ML languages like OCaml and Haskell more than the average
| industry...
| theflyinghorse wrote:
| More Java than C++ in my opinion. And, get this, JS! We shall
| see how far OpenFin will actually go in that space because
| they will potentially drive a ton of JS across orgs in
| finance
| ppeetteerr wrote:
| Java is maturing into a syntactically nice language, albeit
| slowly, and it's the backbone of many medium and large
| companies.
|
| You might have trouble finding small companies using anything
| but JS/Ruby/Python. These companies align more with velocity
| and cost of engineering, and not so much with performance.
| That's probably why the volume of interpreted languages is
| greater than that of "enterprisey" or "performance" languages.
| ystvn wrote:
| > Java is maturing into a syntactically nice language, albeit
| slowly, and it's the backbone of many medium and large
| companies.
|
| I've heard about Java initiatives to improve it, but can you
| point to examples of how how Java "is maturing into a
| syntactically nice language"?
|
| I'm tempted to learn it, but wonder whether it would really
| become nice enough to become a 'go-to' language (over TS in
| my case)
| theanonymousone wrote:
| There are some interesting talks and slide decks that I
| have to search around to find. Here is one:
| https://speakerdeck.com/bazlur_rahman/breaking-java-
| stereoty...
|
| Check jbang.dev, and then talks by its author Max Rydahl
| Andersen. That could be a starting point.
| gf000 wrote:
| It has virtual threads, that under most circumstances let
| you get away from the async model. It has records, that are
| data-first immutable classes, that can be defined in a
| single line, with sane equals toString and hash. It has
| sealed classes as well, the latter two giving you product
| and sum types, with proper pattern matching.
|
| Also, a very wide-reaching standard library, good enough
| type system, and possibly the most advanced runtime with
| very good tooling.
| 62951413 wrote:
| https://inside.java/2024/05/23/dop-v1-1-introduction/
| ppeetteerr wrote:
| I've always felt it was verbose and the need for classes
| for everything was a bit of a overkill in 90% of
| circumstances (we're even seeing a pushback against OOP
| these days).
|
| Here are some actual improvements:
|
| - Record classes
|
| public record Point(int x, int y) { }
|
| - Record patterns
|
| record Person(String name, int age) { }
|
| if (obj instanceof Person(String name, int age)) {
| System.out.println(name + " is " + age); }
|
| - No longer needing to import base Java types - Automatic
| casting
|
| if (obj instanceof String s) { // use s directly }
|
| Don't get me wrong, I still find some aspects of the
| language frustrating:
|
| - all pointers are nullable with support from annotation to
| lessen the pain
|
| - the use of builder class functions (instead of named
| parameters like in other languages)
|
| - having to define a type for everything (probably the best
| part of TS is inlining type declarations!)
|
| But these are minor gripes
| xhevahir wrote:
| Aren't a lot of those Java employers stuck on an old version
| of the language, one that's lacking most of those nice
| features?
| ramblerman wrote:
| less and less, with the new release cycles.
|
| What you get is either really old (Java 8 stuck on
| something nasty like weblogic).
|
| Or companies running either cutting edge or LTS.
| viscosity wrote:
| I feel the same way and I think that Gleam is best language
| that fits this criteria. It has the simplicity of Go but the
| ergonomics of Kotlin.
| brabel wrote:
| I really like Gleam. But if you want a job, that's probably
| the worst choice ever. The language is just a few years old
| and lack libraries for mostly everything. Why are people
| recommending that here, do you guys work using Gleam??
|
| Let's be honest , your realistic options for work are Java,
| C#, C++, and depending on the industry, Swift, Go, Kotlin,
| Dart and Rust.
| oDot wrote:
| I work in Gleam on my software and it's a treat. I use the
| FFI for JS libraries all the time.
| cies wrote:
| Being able to talk passionately and with experience about
| "exotic" languages during an interview will help you land
| the job.
|
| I will hire the one that talks about the joy of FP and/or
| static typing ANYDAY over the programmer with only JS
| experience an no visible interest to look beyond.
| airstrike wrote:
| Rust is general purpose. You can use it for anything.
|
| But use the best tool for the job. Ecosystem matters. What are
| you planning to build?
| cies wrote:
| Okay, Rust is general purpose enough...
|
| But is it general audience? (can every Py/PHP/JS/TS/Java/C#
| dev become productive in it quickly?)
|
| Also: if you want quick (re)compiles on a larger codebase,
| Rust is not for you.
| ModernMech wrote:
| I would say yes. I have experience teaching Rust to ~20 yo
| students of Java, and they are able to be productive in
| Rust within a semester. Your median Java and C# dev should
| be able to use Rust. Dunno about Python devs.
| cies wrote:
| Sure they can use it, and learn it in a semester.
|
| Also: good you use Rust in teaching!
|
| But I want a fast on-ramp, quick iterations and clean
| looking code. (and went with Kotlin because of that -- I
| like Rust more myself, but I have a business to run, so
| tradeoffs)
| nairboon wrote:
| D?
| b_e_n_t_o_n wrote:
| Swift! It actually has a pretty big server community, Vapor and
| Hummingbird are both great frameworks, Apple has been replacing
| some of their Java services with it, it's open source and cross
| platform and Apple seems serious about making it viable on
| Linux, which it is. No need for Xcode, it has an open source
| LSP and first class VSCode plugin.
|
| Plus it's a fun language to write. Some people say it's a
| nicer, higher level Rust.
|
| I also like the look of Kotlin but I've never used it. I think
| Kotlin and Swift are the two premier modern multi-paradigm
| languages.
| airstrike wrote:
| I do like Swift but it also suffers a bit from identity
| crisis. The compiler experience is quite disappointing too--I
| found myself helping the compiler more than the compiler
| helped me.
|
| I've since moved to Rust and have not looked back.
| Importantly, rust-analyzer runs circles around the Swift
| VSCode plugin (or Xcode for that matter)
| b_e_n_t_o_n wrote:
| Have you tried it since 6.2 came out with approachable
| concurrency enabled? The compiler is quite useful.
| airstrike wrote:
| No, I think I stopped using it in 5-something. Will try
| to play with it again to see how it feels these days,
| thank you.
|
| Though I must admit it's hard for me to imagine using
| anything other than Rust for 90% of projects.
| b_e_n_t_o_n wrote:
| I'm the same but opposite, I like Rust but find myself
| using Swift most of the time. They sort of do the same
| thing but coming from opposite directions. Can't go wrong
| with either imo.
|
| I really do wanna try Kotlin at some point as well. Rust,
| Kotlin, and Swift feel like the future of languages to
| me.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The identitiy is clear, it is a language first and foremost
| for Apple ecosystems.
|
| It also needs to target GNU/Linux, because Apple got rid of
| their server offerings, thus anyone doing server code for
| applications on the Apple ecosystem, that wants to stay in
| a single language needs to be able to write such software
| on GNU/Linux with Swift.
|
| Windows well, since they have the open source story, it
| kind of falls from there as complement.
|
| On the revamped website they are quite clear about the
| identity.
|
| Cloud Services, CLI and Embedded as the main targets for
| the open source version.
| ternaryoperator wrote:
| If OP wants to run on Windows, Swift is a non-starter. It
| barely runs there.
| lmm wrote:
| Scala is the best language I've ever used - all the good parts
| of Typescript and all the good parts of Java or Rust. And
| fintech is one of the few niches where you might still be able
| to find a job using it.
| riffraff wrote:
| How's the tooling story with Scala these days?
|
| I played with it a long time ago and the IDE (eclipse
| plugin?) was a bit of a mess, sbt was prone to weird issues
| and lock ups and the compiler was pretty slow.
|
| Very fun language tho!
| pjmlp wrote:
| Some of the folks now work for JetBrains, thus InteliJ is
| the one with best support.
|
| Then they decided to focus the remaining effort on Scala
| Metals, which is based on LSP protocol.
|
| In both cases it is alright for Scala 2, there are some
| rough edges for Scala 3.
| kriiuuu wrote:
| We use Scala as well and are very happy with it. We also have
| a lot of TS, and at this point we are tempted to just switch
| to using ScalaJS on the frontend as well because of how much
| better the language is to use. It feels like Scala 3 fixed a
| lot of issues people had with the language. The IDE tooling
| isn't the best, but even then it feels like the IDE tooling
| for TS breaks all the time once the project is large enough.
| lmm wrote:
| > We also have a lot of TS, and at this point we are
| tempted to just switch to using ScalaJS on the frontend as
| well because of how much better the language is to use.
|
| I did that and highly recommend it, at least for new
| projects - not sure that it's worth the effort of porting
| an existing project, but ScalaJS just works and I found far
| fewer rough edges than I expected.
| thuridas wrote:
| I had this feeling when Kotlin (that took a lot of ideas from
| Scala)
|
| Intellij tools are great.
| yxhuvud wrote:
| You could try Crystal if you like the other parts of Ruby. But
| you probably ain't going to find a job writing it anytime soon.
| xgdgsc wrote:
| Julia
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Julia/comments/1efxp0j/julias_advan...
| thomasikzelf wrote:
| You should try ReScript. The language has improved a lot
| recently. If Typescript is javascript with types bolted on then
| ReScript is javascript redesigned the proper way. The lsp is
| also surprisingly good. All that while still being in the node
| eco system.
| pjmlp wrote:
| If you want to stay in Fintech, I really don't see anything
| beyond Java, C#, C++, TypeScript (for the Web stuff).
|
| Some Fintech companies might go a bit outside the norm and
| allow for Haskell, F#, Scala, which they tend to use as DSLs
| for some workflows.
|
| Then if you into array languages, banking and fintech is one fo
| the few domains where that have managed to stay around, but
| those positions seem hard to get.
|
| Dyalog (APL), J, BQN, Kdb+ (Q)
|
| https://www.arraycast.com/resources
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| I work in Fintech, and we use Python with type checking. It
| works like a charm. Safer than Java.
| pjmlp wrote:
| That was a fun one, being safer than Java.
|
| Since we are at it, faster as well.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Not as fun as still having no null safety in Java.
| pjmlp wrote:
| As if Python was any better in that regard, as dynamic
| language.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Python with type checking is statically type checked. So
| yes, Python with type checking is better in that regard.
| And it's safer than Java because there are more classes
| of errors that Python with type checking will pick up
| during static type checking than what the Java compiler
| will pick up.
| pjmlp wrote:
| If Python with added sugar counts, same goes to Java with
| added sugar.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Can you name any tool that adds static null safety to
| Java?
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| How did you do typing? Was it 'hints', or some other
| outside option.? It always seemed to me that since it isn't
| baked in, that it comes down to organizational discipline.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| We run mypy with `--strict` mode in CI, which means it
| only passes if we have type hints and if they are
| correct, or if we have added `# type: ignore[code]` for
| places where the errors are reported.
|
| And the type hints and behaviour are specified as part of
| Python, so it's kind of baked in. It's just that the
| actual type checker is not part of CPython, though Mypy
| is considered the reference implementation.
|
| We have quite a large code base and very few `# type:
| ignore[code]` directives.
|
| Some third party code still has poor type hints, but for
| the most part it's fine, and we get null safety which you
| don't get for Java.
| pjmlp wrote:
| SonarQube/Checkstyle/Kotlin/Scala sugar > Mypy sugar
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Type hints and their behaviour are part of the Python
| language. Kotlin and Scala is not Java. I did not know
| that checkstyle + SonarQube adds static null safety to
| Java, but I appreciate that you will share a citation
| that it adds static null safety. I think everyone coding
| Java should really learn to use this so they don't create
| null pointer exceptions.
| maleldil wrote:
| It's been years since typing was added to Python, and many
| people still underestimate it. You're right; Python with
| strict type hints is more type-safe than Java and Go. It
| even has features like pattern matching and proper enums,
| both of which Go lacks.
|
| The only issue is that some libraries (not many!) are still
| untyped, so you may need to write wrappers or stubs
| occasionally. But that applies to a small and decreasing
| minority of libraries.
|
| I only wish Python were faster and had ahead-of-time binary
| compilation.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Python sure is slow. It's not that big a problem most of
| the time, but once it becomes relevant, it becomes super
| relevant. The lack of AOT binary compilation also is very
| annoying.
| FacelessJim wrote:
| You should give Julia a go, can be written completely
| static if desired (not as static as rust of course, but
| compared to python it's miles ahead). Can be made fast,
| very fast. AOT compilation with trimmed executables is
| coming in 1.12
| maleldil wrote:
| Doesn't Julia suffer from very long startup times? One of
| the things I use Python for is CLI programs. The startup
| time isn't great either, but Julia was even worse last I
| tested.
| ChrisRackauckas wrote:
| Julia v1.12, the unreleased version which is currently in
| release candidate stage (and has had a longer RC stage
| than expected but should be done at least by the end of
| the year) has the ability to fully ahead of time compile
| and generate binaries, like you would expect from a
| language like C. It also trims these binaries so that
| they are a reasonable size given the elements of the
| runtime that are used. Thus for good type-stable code you
| get callable binaries without JIT overhead, and this
| leads to a much better CLI experience. It will take a bit
| of time so that there's more package tooling and support
| built around this feature, but this is the path a lot of
| the ecosystem CLI tooling is now going and that will be a
| pretty dramatic shift in the usability for these kinds of
| use cases which Julia had traditionally ignored.
| superlopuh wrote:
| Python with Pyright in strict mode. I work on a ~200kLOC fully
| typed Python project [0] and am having fun.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/xdslproject/xdsl
| hk__2 wrote:
| Have you worked with TypeScript? I'm working with both every
| day and I'm always frustrated by the limits of the 'type'
| system in Python- sure it's better than nothing but it's so
| basic compared to what you can do in TypeScript. It's very
| easy to use advanced generics in TypeScript but a hell to do
| (sometimes outright impossible) in Python.
| superlopuh wrote:
| Yep, although never in a project of a similar size. One
| advantage of the Python setup is that the types are ignored
| at runtime, so there's no overhead at startup/compilation
| time. Although it's also a disadvantage in terms of what
| you can do in the system, of course.
| hasperdi wrote:
| Deno and latest versions of Nodejs run TS code without
| transpilation
| IshKebab wrote:
| I agree it is pretty nice (with uv and as long as you REALLY
| don't care about performance). But even if you are one of the
| enlightened few to use that setup, you still have to deal
| with dependencies that don't have type annotations, or only
| basic ones like `dict`.
|
| Typescript (via Deno) is still a better option IMO.
| misja111 wrote:
| Have you really been using Node or even Typescript as backend
| dev in fintech? After 15 years in fintech I have never heard
| anything like that. For the backend it's mostly Java with some
| sprinkles of C#, Cobol or Python.
| kace91 wrote:
| Yup, the previous company I used to work for just had a
| successful exit last year too. I guess it was an iteration
| speed thing, though as you say python is becoming popular as
| well and IMO it is not anymore suited to finance than node
| is, other than the connection with data science.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Moonbit lang is currently the best language I've seen (not a
| joke).
| misja111 wrote:
| Thank you for this, I just checked it out and it looks really
| great
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| What's wrong with Java? It's used everywhere from FinTech
| startups to banks/insurers, with features like decimal
| arithmetic introduced specially for finance a long time ago,
| multiple runtimes (Oracle/JVM, IBM T9, GraalVM), a very healthy
| ecosystem of libs/packages, etc.
| nesarkvechnep wrote:
| The question asked usually by people who haven't used
| anything else professionally or at all.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Answer the question.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| Maven and Gradle suck.
| kace91 wrote:
| >What's wrong with Java? It's used everywhere from FinTech
| startups to banks/insurers
|
| As the OP, it's not even the language for me but the
| implications of companies that use it.
|
| It's a non starter for startup/scaleups and strongly related
| with oldish companies and consulting firms, which in turn
| translates to far worse working conditions (not remote
| friendly, overtime, dress code, etc).
|
| Mind that it might just be a local culture thing, your
| mileage may vary.
| gf000 wrote:
| I usually ask at interviews what version of Java they are
| using. If they are on >8 of >11, then that's a pretty good
| green flag.
|
| And it's a non-starter for startups, because it's not hyped
| enough, not for a technical reason.
|
| Many of them would be way better off with a standard
| traditional Spring app.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| > _It's a non starter for startup /scaleups and strongly
| related with oldish companies and consulting firms, which
| in turn translates to far worse working conditions (not
| remote friendly, overtime, dress code, etc)._
|
| mkay
| skydhash wrote:
| If you have very good developers, go with whatever they
| feel most efficient with, (as long as there are enough
| libraries). But if you're planning on getting big, do add a
| transition to stabler tech like Java, C#. They're boring
| tech and full of guardrails. Which is what you want when
| performance is not your main concern.
| mimir wrote:
| My startup switched from python to Java and saw our
| productivity explode. Using modern Java versions in a non
| enterprise way (no frameworks, minimal oop, minimal DI,
| functional features like immutable objects, optional, etc)
| is quite nice. Our ability to deliver performant and
| working features was orders of magnitude faster than
| python. The ecosystem of libraries is crazy deep which also
| helps build quickly.
|
| I won't deny there's a lot of bad Java written, but IMO
| it's actually one of the best languages for a startup if
| any of your code needs good performance.
| lunias wrote:
| 100%. Java has an amazing standard library, amazing IDE
| support, AOT compilation, JIT optimizations, static
| typing, runs much faster generally, and supports multi-
| threading... seems like a no-brainer to me.
| ksec wrote:
| You may want to look into Crystal.
| chillfox wrote:
| +1 for Crystal, it's a fantastic language and the community
| is great (on the official forum).
| davedx wrote:
| > - Typescript was limited by its option to allow non
| strictness
|
| That's 100% a project setting you can turn on or off though,
| it's like -Wall in C++ projects.
|
| I'm also a back-end dev who's worked in fintech and IME,
| TypeScript is a great choice.
|
| From my experience with python, _none_ of its type checking
| libraries are complete enough.
| kace91 wrote:
| >That's 100% a project setting you can turn on or off though,
| it's like -Wall in C++ projects.
|
| I know, it's just not realistically up to me. I depend on the
| team/company culture which I'd rather not have in the picture
| - I've already gone through trying to fight the sea of
| unknown/any.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Kotlin!
| plainOldText wrote:
| Nim is a statically typed language with a syntax resembling
| Python's. https://nim-lang.org/
|
| Sometimes I'm questioning if it has the potential to become
| more popular in the future if AI becomes adept at translating
| Python projects to Nim.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Do you think those languages are scratching the itch? If not
| maybe we need to pick a suitable underdog and champion its use.
| Clojure comes to mind. Or Unison. Something where immutability
| shines.
| pornel wrote:
| It's hard to find good data sources for this, especially that
| StackOverflow is in decline[1].
|
| IEEE's methodology[2] is sensible given what's possible, but the
| data sources are all flawed in some ways (that don't necessarily
| cancel each other out). The number of search results reported by
| Google is the most volatile indirect proxy signal. Search results
| include everything mentioning the query, without promising it
| being a fair representation of 2025. People using a language
| rarely refer to it literally as the "X programming language", and
| it's a stretch to count all publicity as a "top language"
| publicity.
|
| TIOBE uses this method too, and has the audacity to display it as
| a popularity with two decimal places, but their historical data
| shows that the "popularity" of C has dropped by half over two
| years, and then doubled next year. Meanwhile, C didn't budge at
| all. This method has a +/- 50% error margin.
|
| [1]: https://redmonk.com/rstephens/2023/12/14/language-
| rankings-u... [2]: https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-
| languages-methodol...
| abm53 wrote:
| Perhaps the best source would now be the statistics of LLM
| queries, if they were available.
|
| Edit: I see they raise this point at length themselves in TFA.
| roywashere wrote:
| Plus TIOBE had Perl enter the top 10 suddenly this year but I
| do not see any new developers. And Ada too! Where are all those
| Ada programmers?
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/packages?compare=ada,gcc,go,ja.
| ..
|
| Ada seems pretty popular on Arch
|
| This data is kinda worthless for popularity contests, since
| they may get picked up by aur packages, but this gives a
| solid insight into wich languages are foundational
|
| I wish the same was available for other distros
|
| You can do the same with docker images curl
| -s https://hub.docker.com/v2/repositories/library/python/ |
| jq -r ".pull_count" 8244552364 curl -s
| https://hub.docker.com/v2/repositories/library/golang/ | jq
| -r ".pull_count" 2396145586 curl -s
| https://hub.docker.com/v2/repositories/library/perl/ | jq -r
| ".pull_count" 248786850 curl -s
| https://hub.docker.com/v2/repositories/library/rust/ | jq -r
| ".pull_count" 102699482
|
| "Top Languages" doesn't mean "better" nor does it mean "best"
| epcoa wrote:
| That's a C++ URL parser library, has nothing to do with the
| programming language.
| maleldil wrote:
| You want gcc-ada for the programming language.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Keeping 7 Ada vendors in business, one of the few areas where
| developers actually pay for tooling.
|
| https://www.adacore.com/
|
| https://www.ghs.com/products/ada_optimizing_compilers.html
|
| https://www.ptc.com/en/products/developer-tools/apexada
|
| https://www.ddci.com/solutions/products/ddci-developer-
| suite...
|
| http://www.irvine.com/tech.html
|
| http://www.ocsystems.com/w/index.php/OCS:PowerAda
|
| http://www.rrsoftware.com/html/prodinf/janus95/j-ada95.htm
| zerr wrote:
| It's more like people in golf suits agree on corruption
| schemes rather than actual devs making decisions.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Which nonetheless reveals it is more relevant than
| others.
| kamaal wrote:
| >>Perl enter the top 10 suddenly this year but I do not see
| any new developers.
|
| Perl is almost as active as Javascript. And more useful than
| Python.
|
| https://metacpan.org/recent
|
| I write Perl to do all sorts of thing every week. Its strange
| its not in the top 5 list.
| cies wrote:
| You're joking right?
| lief79 wrote:
| That was an active debate ... 15 years ago
| kamaal wrote:
| If you look at programming language list- Apart from
| Python, Java. Most are targeted to specific
| platforms(databases, browsers, embedded systems) or
| tech(SQL for database).
|
| The general purpose programming languages today are
| still- Python, Java, and Perl. Make whatever of this you
| will.
|
| Larry Wall at one point said, if you make something very
| specific to a use case(like awk, sed, php etc), it sort
| of naturally starts to come out of general purpose use.
|
| Its just that Kotlin, Rust, Go, SQL, Julia, SQL,
| Javascript etc. These are not general purpose programming
| languages.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| By far the most useful and helpful is job ads: it literally
| defines the demand side of the programming language market.
|
| Yes, that does not show us how much code is running out there,
| and some companies might have huge armies with very low churn
| and so the COBOL stacks in banks don't show up, but I can't
| think of a more useful and directly measurable way of
| understanding a languages real utility.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| Yes to your point, COBOL which ranks very low here is still
| fundamental to the infrastructure of several major
| industries, with some sources [1] reporting that it is used
| in:
|
| 43% of all banking systems.
|
| 95% of all US ATM transactions.
|
| 80% of all in-person credit card transactions.
|
| 96% of travel bookings.
|
| This may very well dramatically change in the next few years
| with such an emphasis on enterprise AI tools to rewrite large
| COBOL repositories. [2]
|
| [1] https://www.pcmag.com/articles/ibms-plan-to-update-cobol-
| wit...
|
| [2] e.g. Blitzy https://paper.blitzy.com/blitzy_system_2_ai_p
| latform_topping...
| zabzonk wrote:
| In retail banking I'm sure that this could be true. Working
| in investment banking, I never saw a single COBOL
| application, or had to have my C++/Java/$MODERNLANGUAGE
| code interact with one.
| davedx wrote:
| Yeah when I worked in investment banking it was VBA and
| Java everywhere, never saw or heard of COBOL.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Corp bank here, everyone has rumours about COBOL systems
| but no one I've ever spoke to has seen, interacted or has
| any other evidence these really exist anymore either.
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| Me neither.
|
| But I asked for a bank statement from my old savings
| account a few years old and it took two weeks to print
| out, printed in monospace dot matrix.
|
| Or the betting company that I was a customer that
| suspends betting everyday 6:30am for an hour for daily
| maintainance. Ironically, they would accept bets for
| football matches played at the time, but the system was
| shut down.
|
| I suspect both are run on COBOL.
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| You haven't seen or heard them because they are
| abstracted away by APIs, circuit breakers and proxies.
| Almost ALL banks, credit card companies, travel systems
| and other high throughput transaction systems run on
| mainframe that is written in COBOL.
| zabzonk wrote:
| I think the issue here is that people working in fintech
| don't seem to come across these systems much, if at all -
| if you know one specifically, please tell us.
| lief79 wrote:
| It's still there at the accounting/backend level.
| Automated Financial Systems Level 3 and it's replacement
| Vision are commercial loan systems.
|
| LVL3 is pure cobol. It has been recently deprecated but
| there are many banks who own the code and are still self
| hosting it, along with it's IBM green screen support.
|
| Vision is a java front end in front of an updated cobol
| backend. When your reputation is based on your
| reliability and long term code stability, at what point
| do you risk making the conversion, versus training new
| developers to work on your system.
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/business-analyst-afs-
| visi...
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Analogously, GDSes like SABRE still ran on mainframes
| until very recently (c. 2023) [0]. SABRE was written in
| some combination of assembly and some kind of in-house
| dialect of PL/I, if I recall.
|
| [0] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/11/gds_gets_over_
| histori...
| cyberpunk wrote:
| No, we are not afraid of our own systems. The idea that
| there is some fabled computer system which everyone is
| too scared to touch doesn't exist (I work in payment
| processing). There are levels of controls way outside
| these systems which provide these safety nets (e.g
| settlement / reconciliation controls).
|
| If the cobol is still there, it's not due to risk. If
| anything, the cobol is a much higher operational risk
| than replacing it.
| array_key_first wrote:
| I worked briefly at a company that wrote applications
| that interacted with bank mainframes. Think end point
| bank teller systems and in branch customer/account
| management. They definitely do exist - every major bank
| has a mainframe written in (usually) cobol.
|
| But it's very abstracted, part of our main product
| offering WAS abstracting it. On top of our ready to use
| applications, we offered APIs for higher-level data
| retrieval and manipulation. Under the hood, that
| orchestrates mainframe calls.
|
| But even then that there could be more level of
| abstractions. Not every bank used screen-level mainframe
| access. Some used off the shelf mainframe abstractors
| like JxChange (yes, there's a market for this).
|
| Fintech would be even more abstracted, I imagine. At that
| point you can only interact with the mainframe a few
| levels up, but it's still there. Out of sight.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > Working in investment banking, I never saw a single
| COBOL application
|
| What was the back office settlement or wire transfer
| system written in? There is a good chance that _some_
| part of them was written in COBOL. And while Bloomberg
| terminals are a vendor product, for a bloody long time,
| many of their screens had _some_ COBOL.
|
| Also, lots of quantitative software at i-banks use
| LINPACK or BLAS, which use FORTRAN.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Well, I had a very badly specified project to write a
| library for our back office systems to do Swift payments
| from our C++ applications, via COM. There was no obvious
| COBOL involved, on either side, but it has to be said
| that the whole use case for the library was very murky.
| And it never worked, due to the lack of spec, not the
| languages.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Cobol is _used in_ pretty much all enterprise legacy
| systems.
|
| But "used in" doesn't mean that it's actively being
| developed by more then a tiny team for maintaining it.
|
| As this graph we're commenting on is mostly talking about
| popularity/most used it's never going to rate higher,
| because for every one Cobol dev there are more then 100
| Java devs employed by the same company
| cyberpunk wrote:
| That's a pretty wild claim. What's legacy for you? I'd
| consider legacy e.g J2EE crap running on
| web[sphere|logic] as holding most of the points in that
| league table vs COBOL.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| A legacy software to me is whatever the company that
| employs me says is said legacy software.
|
| Pretty much every business I've worked at to date has had
| such legacy software, which was inevitably still used in
| _some_ contexts.
|
| It's not always obvious, because - following with the
| previous example numbers - only 1-2 Java devs will have
| to interact with the legacy software again, hence from
| the perspective of the remaining 98, Cobol doesn't exist
| anymore.
| lief79 wrote:
| If they're talking about Cobol, it's usually systems
| originating before the early 90s that haven't been
| completely rewritten.
|
| J2EE would be late 90s and 2000s.
| BoredPositron wrote:
| I can only speak to the two bigger German banks (i.e.,
| Sparkasse and VR banks), but if you look at their
| outsourced development providers (Atruvia and Sparkasse
| Informatik), they're still offering incentives for their
| apprentices to learn COBOL, especially in the german dual
| apprenticeship programs which they can steer more easily
| than university courses. My wife has been doing COBOL for
| one of them since 2012, and the demand has never
| diminished. If anything, it's increased because experienced
| developers are retiring. They even pull some of these
| retired developers back for particularly challenging
| projects.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Sparkasse and VR aren't the two largest German banks. DB
| is at least double the size of Commerzbank which is again
| 100mn in assets ahead of DZ. I don't find it all that
| surprising that these small banks are still trying to
| keep their legacy systems alive, but it's not the case
| for the bigger boys. (Source: work for several of them)
| BoredPositron wrote:
| You are right if we only talk about assets. Should've
| clarified I meant more in regards of retail customers and
| branches.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Oh, right, consumer banks. Yes I can imagine they're all
| extremely legacy bound. They're a very small percentage
| of banking, though.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Thinking about how to measure this properly, why not just the
| moving average of daily downloads over 30 days from each
| repository?
|
| ... yes CI would be a lot of these downloads, but it's at
| least a useful proxy
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah except job adverts have _enormous_ lag behind what 's
| actually popular. For example we used Rust quite a lot at my
| previous company but we didn't advertise for Rust developers
| at all.
|
| Also then you're looking at which languages _were popular in
| the past_ whereas the interesting stat is which languages are
| being used to start new projects.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Interesting might not be the same as useful.
|
| If I'm trying to figure out which language to learn next,
| knowing what I can get paid for might be more useful, even
| if it's not that "interesting".
|
| If lots of projects are starting up in Rust, but I can't
| get interviews because nobody is advertising, how useful is
| learning Rust?
| gf000 wrote:
| Well, we have to define what a language's popularity mean.
| Because Rust is surely more 'hyped', than Java, but Java
| has at least an order of more developers/software written,
| etc.
|
| So in which meaning do you use 'popular'?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Ideally we'd like to know both, as they tell us different
| things.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > we used Rust quite a lot at my previous company but we
| didn't advertise for Rust developers at all.
|
| How did you find Rust developers when you needed to hire?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Find a CS program that teaches Rust and hire their
| graduates.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Existing C++ developers learned Rust.
| usrbinbash wrote:
| > the most useful and helpful is job ads
|
| That would certainly be the case, if it were not for the fact
| that [fake job postings][1] are a thing.
|
| [1]: https://globalnews.ca/news/10636759/fake-job-postings-
| warnin...
| ramblerman wrote:
| Is there a reason to believe this would skew results?
|
| i.e. Are you assuming (insinuating) jobs for some
| programming languages are more likely to be fake
| falcor84 wrote:
| I would assume so. I expect there to be a lot of job
| postings looking for more "sexy" technologies to create
| the visage that those companies are growing and planning
| towards the future. And conversely I wouldn't expect any
| job postings of old "streets behind" technologies like
| COBOL to be fake, as they wouldn't help with such
| signalling.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| > measurable way of understanding a languages real utility
|
| It feels like that metric misses "utility" and instead comes
| from a very American (or capitalistic maybe is better)
| mindset.
|
| What about Max/MSP/Jitter? Huge impact in the music scene,
| probably has very small amount jobs available, so it'd rank
| fairly low while it's probably the top media/music language
| out there today. There are tons of languages that provide
| "the most utility for their domain" yet barely have any
| public job ads about them at all.
|
| I think such metric would be useful to see the "employability
| of someone who knows that language" if anything, but probably
| more pain than gain to link "# of job ads" with "utility".
| tialaramex wrote:
| 1. Not all roles are advertised. I've actually only been
| interviewed for two of the jobs I've ever had, both at the
| same place - my current employer because it's a public
| institution and so it always advertises and interviews for
| jobs even if it has an internal candidate who is likely to be
| a good fit. In fact the first of those jobs was basically my
| shape on purpose, another candidate was an equally good fit
| and they hired both of us.
|
| Everywhere else people hired me because they knew who I was
| and what I could do and so in place of an "interview" maybe I
| grab lunch with some people I know and they explain what they
| want and I say yeah that sounds like a job I'd take and maybe
| suggest tweaks or focus changes. No shortlist of candidates,
| no tech interview, no tailoring a CV to match an advert.
| Nothing -> Lunch or Drinks -> Job offer.
|
| So that can cause some distortion, especially for the niche
| languages where there are like six experts and you know them
| - an advert is futile there.
| thrw_10292024 wrote:
| > It's hard to find good data sources for this
|
| I like this:
|
| https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2024/1
|
| It gives you a count of public repos on GitHub by language
| used, going back to 2012.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Given how mediocre LLMs are, I don't see this happening anytime
| soon... but I think a "better" LLM (that puts the "language" into
| large language model) can seamlessly translate between
| programming languages.
|
| Right now, it's apparent to me that LLMs are mostly tuned in the
| programming space for what n-gate would call "webshit", but I
| think it is a clear (to me) evolutionary step towards getting
| much better "porting" ability in LLMs.
|
| I don't think that is in the priority list of the LLM companies.
| But I think it would be a real economic boon: certainly there is
| a backlog of code/systems that needs to be "modernized" in
| enterprises, so there is a market.
|
| Ultimately I wonder if an LLM can be engineered to represent code
| in an intermediate form that is language-independent to a large
| extent, and "render" it to the desired language/platform when
| requested.
| tasuki wrote:
| > Given how mediocre LLMs are
|
| That's not a given... I think LLMs are amazing!
| gt0 wrote:
| I'd like to see some clarity in these stats, it can't just be me
| that finds it hard to believe that there are significantly more
| Python jobs than Java. I wonder if job listings are saying
| "Python, C++" or something, so that's a point for Python, even
| though, the job is < 1% Python just for test rigs or something.
| akkad33 wrote:
| You'd be hard pressed to find a job posting in ML/ data
| analytics where python is not in the requirements
| dismalaf wrote:
| Nice to see my beloved R still has some mindshare... Also Ruby.
| globalnode wrote:
| lolrust
| bgwalter wrote:
| The methodology involves search hits, Stackoverflow, conference
| and journal articles.
|
| In all of these Python is artificially over-represented. Search
| hits and Stackoverflow questions represent beginners who are
| force fed Python in university or in expensive Python consultancy
| sessions. Journal articles are full of "AI" topics, which use
| Python.
|
| Python is not used in any application on my machine apart from OS
| package managers. Python is used in web back ends, but is
| replaced by Go. "AI" is the only real stronghold due to inertia
| and marketing.
|
| Like the TIOBE index, the results of this so called survey are
| meaningless and of no relevance to the jobs market.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Huh. If you hate AI as you sorely do, you will find any excuse
| to be dismissive.
|
| Besides AI development, Python is used heavily in data
| processing and data science, also in writing bots of any kind,
| and as a glue language to do numerous tasks. It is true that it
| is being replaced by Go in web backends, but it still sees
| heavy use in that too. Moreover, Python is the only language
| that many AIs can interactively use in their chat sessions.
| lunias wrote:
| Python is used heavily in data science (and a lot of other
| places) because people who go to university for non software
| engineering disciplines get taught Python because it's "the
| easy language that already has libraries for this research
| we're doing." Those people then go on to write more of these
| libraries. Their code does amazing things, but very slowly.
| HankStallone wrote:
| There's a good video series called "Programming Paradigms"
| by Jerry Cain, taken from his class at Stanford. I'm not
| sure how long ago it was, but it was before whiteboards,
| when they were still using chalk. He just started including
| Python that year when it was the up-and-coming thing, as an
| example of a higher-level language that does a lot of stuff
| for you. It probably seemed like a breeze for the students
| after the previous weeks spent on C, assembly, and Lisp,
| but at least they got some of the fundamentals of how
| things worked first.
| lunias wrote:
| Totally, it's always about trade-offs. It takes a decent
| amount of time programming to become comfortable choosing
| the language based on the task rather than tailoring the
| task to the language.
| nnurmanov wrote:
| English should be #1:)
| kensai wrote:
| Underrated comment! ;)
| jaxelr wrote:
| Kinda surprising that I see nothing from Zig on all these lists.
| Hemospectrum wrote:
| I would be surprised to see it high in the rankings before it
| establishes certain backward compatibility guarantees.
| runevault wrote:
| How many people are waiting for it to hit 1.0? I am.
|
| I am interested in Zig, but until they can guarantee a stable
| point for an extended period of time I have limited interest.
| Same way with Rust gamedev I'm keeping an eye on Bevy but want
| it to hit 1.0. Some things pre-1.0 is fine, but more core
| pieces of dev like the language often warrant requiring greater
| stability guarantees.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| Don't think zig will ever make it into popularity tbh. It is
| good for low level but it isn't like rust or go. Rust and go
| are really good alternatives for c++ or java code, they just
| work, have good tooling etc. But I would never use zig for that
| kind of use case instead of rust since you don't need to go
| full on engineering every dot mode.
|
| I switched to zig from rust for implementing a database since 6
| months and have no regrets but just don't think anyone would
| use it for writing backend code or other similar smaller
| things.
|
| I used to think similarly about rust before though so don't
| really know anything
| koeng wrote:
| > I switched to zig from rust for implementing a database
| since 6 months and have no regrets but just don't think
| anyone would use it for writing backend code or other similar
| smaller things.
|
| I've been thinking about starting a project in Zig rather
| than Go lately, even though I am skilled at Go. I really like
| working with more, cracked? or simply crazy people willing to
| learn an esoteric language, and zig fits the needs in
| particular I have (mostly very nice C interop)
|
| Would you recommend? How are the average zig contributors vs
| something like go?
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| I don't know about go personally but I have found people
| pleasant so far, it was also pleasant in rust.
|
| It is definitely an excellent language for doing personal
| projects imo
| gf000 wrote:
| Rust has a unique niche it can occupy - namely, it's a "zero-
| overhead" memory safe low-level language.
|
| I never understood why is go brought up next to rust all so
| often, when it has barely any unique qualities, and is a
| high-level GCd language with a dumb type system that outputs
| a single binary... of which there are 1000 other examples. At
| least it has good tooling, I guess.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > I switched to zig from rust for implementing a database
| since 6 months and have no regrets but just don't think
| anyone would use it for writing backend code or other similar
| smaller things.
|
| I don't have a horse in this race, but have you shared more
| about this decision? It would make for a good blog post and
| an even better HN discussion.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| I'm not that accomplished in this field so don't think my
| pov will be that useful. It is mostly same as the rationale
| that tigerbeetle developers shared.
|
| Might consider writing something if my project ends up
| being useful
| pjmlp wrote:
| Other than comptime, it doesn't bring anything new to the 21st
| century.
|
| Its safety story is basically what Modula-2 (1978) and Object
| Pascal (1986) already had, but now it gets done with curly
| brackets instead of a begin/end language.
|
| UAF is an issue, and the tooling to tackle this issue is
| exactly the same that C and C++ have available for the last 30
| years, give it or take it.
|
| It will be another language to talk about, however I doubt it
| will ever make it into mainstream, like having platfrom vendors
| and console Devkits care that Zig exists.
| Mond_ wrote:
| Eh? As far as I can tell Zig already has more traction than
| e.g. D, which is listed.
|
| I don't think it's aiming for mainstream adoption anyway,
| it's a very specific niche.
| pjmlp wrote:
| First lets see if it actually manages 1.0, then lets see
| what major company adopts it for real.
|
| D once upon a time was also hyped due to its Facebook
| usage, Remedy game engine tooling.
|
| Also, has Zig already gone to space?
|
| https://forum.dlang.org/thread/10614fc$273$1@digitalmars.co
| m
|
| Or used by car companies?
|
| https://forum.dlang.org/thread/evridmtwtnhhwvorohyv@forum.d
| l...
|
| Anyway, I don't expect any of them to grow beyond their
| niche userbase.
|
| D has lost its momentum, and Zig isn't really interesting
| as 21st century language in the AI tooling age.
| metaltyphoon wrote:
| IMO a language made mainstream when Azure, AWS and GCP has
| sdks for it. It's not fool proof but and its a perhaps a
| good indicator?
| jibal wrote:
| You shouldn't expect to see any pre-1.0 language in this list,
| especially Zig which not only makes no stability guarantees but
| actively discourages expecting any stability. Heck, Zig 0.15
| just came out that completely overhauled the IO framework from
| top to bottom. Once Zig reaches 1.0, expect them to make some
| effort to gain adherents, which currently is a complete non-
| goal.
| qwertytyyuu wrote:
| I'm surprised to see js under c#
| OccamsMirror wrote:
| You should combine JS and TS for a more accurate ranking.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I'm skeptical. There are more people writing PHP and Ruby than
| HTML? And HTML is a programming language? Those two very
| surprising results make me doubt the others.
|
| Elixir behind OCaml? Possible, I guess, but I know of several
| large Elixir shops and I haven't heard much of OCaml in a while.
| riffraff wrote:
| Perhaps the people who pick HTML as "what programming language
| do you use" are a small number :)
| wormius wrote:
| HTML is a declarative programming language.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming#Domain...
| kstrauser wrote:
| Nah. It's a declarative language, but not a programming
| language.
|
| To prove me wrong, show an HTML program that does any kind of
| computation whatsoever.
|
| There's not one. It's not Turing complete. I doubt it's even
| Turing partial. It's a markup language, not a PL.
| rekenaut wrote:
| Where does this idea that a programming language has to be
| Turing complete come from? As far as I can tell from
| cursory searches, the most broadly understood understanding
| of a programming language is a formal language for
| directing computations on a computer. HTML does this, CSS
| does this, and SQL does this. Frankly even configuration
| languages like YAML or the spare INI file do this in the
| proper context.
|
| Can these languages do _everything_ or even _most_
| computations you would be interested in doing in a
| computer? Of course not. But why should the definition be
| restricted to languages that can do everything?
| ctenb wrote:
| Your definition is overly broad and makes everything a
| programming language, at which point the term isn't
| useful anymore.
| ngruhn wrote:
| But Turing completeness is also too broad. Otherwise
| Power point animations and Conways game of life are
| programming languages.
| ashirviskas wrote:
| I will take this over HTML
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yes. So a criteria that is below Turing Completeness but
| which wouldn't make markdown a programming language.
| Shouldn't be _that_ hard to find such criteria. E.g. "Has
| some form of logic/flow control". Can perform
| computation/"execute". etc.
| gf000 wrote:
| I mean, CS is famously bad at exact definitions [1]. Why
| should we have one for what a PL is? Just do what humans
| have been doing for millenia, how is it commonly used. A
| tomato is a vegetable from a culinary perspective, and
| HTML is not a PL based on its use case _and its literal
| name_.
|
| [1] what is a low or high level language? Strongly typed
| language?
| jpardy wrote:
| Is CSS included in the HTML, if so then it is turing
| complete, maybe? See:
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-
| co...
| brodo wrote:
| If HTML is a programming language, why not SVG? If SVG is a
| programming language, why not PNG? Is your image viewer just
| an interpreter executing PNG code? Maybe being a programming
| language is a spectrum...
| 1718627440 wrote:
| Yes, if you go down this road then the equivalence of code
| and data means that everything is a programming language.
| BuildItBusk wrote:
| As mentioned, HTML is indeed a programming language. But it's
| one that is rarely used on its own. So you could argue that
| having it as a thing of itself in these lists, makes little
| sense.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I contest this. It has no features of programming languages:
| no way to set or read variables, or to evaluate expressions,
| or any kind of flow control.
|
| If it's a programming language, so is Markdown. (It's not,
| either.)
| microflash wrote:
| Take a look at this conditional here:
|
| <picture> <source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)"
| srcset="logo_dark.svg"> <img src="logo.svg" alt="logo"
| width="48"> </picture>
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| "(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" is CSS
| munchler wrote:
| HTML on its own is not Turing complete, so it's not a
| programming language in any practical sense. It's a markup
| language.
| ngruhn wrote:
| not sure if that's a good criterion. There are also non
| Turing complete languages like core SQL or Rocq that
| definitely feel like programming.
| gf000 wrote:
| There are non-Turing complete programming languages, and
| there are many things that are Turing complete but have
| nothing to do with programming (even PowerPoint), so this
| is neither a required nor sufficient property.
|
| I believe a reasonable way to categorize languages as
| programming or not is simply.. what is it's primary use
| case. HTML's last two letters tell us exactly that it is
| not a programming language.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I think "A language often involved in the process of making
| computer programs" is way too weak to define a "Programming
| language". A programming language at least needs to have
| state/expressions/logic. I'm sure there is a good definition,
| but if we allow html then any markup is programming and
| that's obviously false so the line has to be drawn somewhere.
|
| The reason this debate is so strange is because some people
| think it's gatekeeping to say someone who writes html for a
| living isn't "programming". It's nonsense.
| anon1395 wrote:
| HTML isn't turing complete
| obezyian wrote:
| A couple of Java programmers from my first job were stopped by
| police while drinking in a park.
|
| When asked what they do for a living, they said they were
| programmers.
|
| Then the police officer went:
|
| - Oh, I see. HTML.
| tasuki wrote:
| We all live in our own bubbles. I still think Scala is a really
| popular language!
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > There are more people writing PHP and Ruby than HTML?
|
| Intuitevely I'd say yes.
|
| In most jobs I've been in, the ratio of backend/system devs to
| front end devs has been from 3:1 to 20:1 depending on the size.
| Provided I'm on the backend side and would choose companies
| accordingly, but still.
|
| Even for web first services, there will be a flurry of people
| who won't touch a line of html/rendering.
| 1718627440 wrote:
| But how much PHP code does exist, which does not also produce
| HTML? I think that's the whole point of most PHP code.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| An awful lot.
|
| Imagine a PHP backend providing an API for an app. The only
| HTML ever produced will be the admin backend, and perhaps
| auth forms for special cases. The surface of the API will
| produce objects serialized to JSON, and the vast majority
| of the PHP will be business logic to talk to external
| services and do what the service is paid for.
|
| Some might not like the language, but whole businesses will
| run on PHP, with a dedicated react or next.js frontend that
| only talks to the PHP via API.
| phplovesong wrote:
| Probably very little. Its either json or html. Most PHP oit
| there is actually wordpress.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Java at #2? Is it really still being used much for new code in
| this day and age? Or is its popularity mostly due to so much
| legacy code out there to be maintained?
| __rito__ wrote:
| Java is still the default choice for many for enterprise
| software. Job-focused courses and curricula all over the world
| are still leaning big on Java ensuring a steady and large pool
| of okay Java devs.
|
| Job focused Bachelor courses and curricula _highly_ outnumber
| rigorous CS courses like the ones you are likely to find in
| MIT, UCLA-B, IISc, IITs, Oxford, UCL, Tsinghua, Peking, etc.
| oaiey wrote:
| Yes. Companies with existing workforces are doing new software
| all the time. If you have a workforce with let us say 100 devs.
| Even if you hire 10 new ones temporarily or permanent, you for
| sure tell them: use what the other 100 do. It is not
| maintenance what drives this, it is the lack of momentum in
| your work force.
|
| And that is very okay. (Modern) Java and .NET are excellent
| choices. There is nothing wrong with them.
| akkad33 wrote:
| Yes. Many startups using Java in europe
| oaiey wrote:
| And for simple reasons: no experiments in tech stack. No
| friction in hiring. Static typing (which sorts out JS and
| Python) and then you are there.
| mfru wrote:
| Java / Spring Boot + Angular is a very common stack i.e.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| It is a good choice if you want to use a non-Microsoft stack
| language (yes C# can be developed on Linux but the quality of
| the development experience on Linux isn't same as Windows) and
| want a vast ecosystem. Golang is too verbose due to lack of
| exceptions and the size of its ecosystem of third-party
| packages isn't anywhere as close to Java's. Swift is very nice
| but issues with ecosystem exist there too. Too steep a learning
| curve with Rust so more difficult to find developers. Modern
| Java has improved a lot compared to, say, Java 8 with record
| types, pattern matching, multiline strings etc. The pace of new
| features coming to Java has been quite high in recent times.
| Plus there is always the network effect.
| mrsmrtss wrote:
| I have developed .NET solutions on Linux over 8 years now
| (and about 10 years on Windows before) and would say the
| quality of development in Linux is even better than in
| Windows today. Sure you can't use Visual Studio in Linux, but
| you can use VS Code or Rider, which I would prefere anyway.
| pjmlp wrote:
| If you aren't it doing GUIs, which means you need to go
| into FOSS ecosystem with Avalonia or Uno, and if you aren't
| doing anything with profiling or debugging visualization of
| threaded code and a few other goodies that VS has for .NET
| and they will never make available into VSCode extension.
|
| Also the VSCode extension for .NET has the same license as
| VS.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Yes, outside HN praises of Elixir, Gleam, and co, corporations
| run on boring technology, maybe with exception of what the FE
| folks pick up on each project.
|
| They work, have great tooling, and do whatever is required for
| customers.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| What's going on with Swift? Seems surprisingly less popular
| considering it's the official way to develop for Apple.
|
| Is it something to do with frameworks like React?
| oaiey wrote:
| Swift is a nice for one use case. The use cases outnumber the
| popularity in that niche.
| shpx wrote:
| I wish there were less programming languages because every
| library needs to be rewritten as many times as there are
| languages, a combinatorial waste of time.
|
| Now that CoffeeScript is gone I would like to see all Ruby become
| Python.
| nromiun wrote:
| Anything short of a big AI winter is not going to move Python
| from its top spot. As Python has become the first choice of
| output code for LLMs its dominance is only going to grow.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Is Python really the first choice of output code? I'm not
| saying you're wrong, I just don't know the answer and I don't
| know where to look to find out.
|
| I would have assumed it might be JS and more specifically React
| -- isn't that what you often get if you ask an LLM to "make an
| app that does such-and-such"?
|
| (Experimental anecdata: I just asked Gemini to write an app and
| it gave me a single HTML file with embedded JS, no TS or React,
| Tailwind for CSS.)
|
| _(Edit to add: then I asked it to "write some code" instead of
| "write an app", and this time it went with Python.)_
| nromiun wrote:
| Maybe it was because LLMs were trained most on Python code,
| but yes they seem to prefer it.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Again you're making unsupported assertions ("trained most
| on Python code") and coming to unsupported conclusions
| ("they seem to prefer it") -- my own very quick experiment
| shows that it depends on how you ask ("app" versus "code")
| at the very least.
|
| The choices of JS and Python were pretty solid for the
| prompts I gave. Maybe the LLM is, well, making a reasonable
| decision in context, rather than just defaulting to Python!
|
| "LLMs prefer Python" is an over-simplification. Python was
| already very popular, so I agree that LLMs are likely to
| entrench that popularity, but that doesn't mean Python will
| grow into other areas where it wasn't being used much
| before.
| nromiun wrote:
| Why are you verbosely repeating my own replies? You asked
| why, I told you a theory that MAYBE because they were
| trained on Python code. You do know that's how a LLM or
| even a simple neural network works right?
|
| Of course it is an over-simplification. Should I do an
| empirical scientific study before I can reply that MAYBE
| LLMs seem to prefer Python? I was talking from my own
| personal experience.
|
| Are you using a LLM to write your replies? Because they
| seem very odd to me.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Sorry, I guess I'm being pointlessly argumentative.
|
| I didn't use any LLMs for those comments, but that
| comment style feeds into the training data, so it's not
| surprising if LLMs like to copy it!
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Ime, unless you steer it otherwise, they will default toward
| TS/JS almost exclusively. Probably Python though if for some
| reason they decided not to use TS/JS.
| 1718627440 wrote:
| I tried it with some basic data structures and the order was:
| Python, Java, C++, Javascript.
| zwnow wrote:
| And people try to convince me that there are Elixir jobs so its
| worth learning Elixir, hah
| mrheosuper wrote:
| What is "Arduino" ? If it's the "Arduino" that hobbyist using to
| DIY device, then "Arduino" is not a language, it's C++.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Correct, but it is the same root cause that make people say
| HTML and CSS are programming languages, C and Fortran written
| libraries are "Python" libraries, and so forth.
| figassis wrote:
| Yes, that is weird and makes the chart lose credibility. So
| this likely should bump C++ a bit.
| ComplexSystems wrote:
| The Arduino docs call it the "Arduino programming language" for
| some reason, even though it's mostly just C++ with a few
| typedefs. I am not sure why.
| mrheosuper wrote:
| Maybe they don't want to confuse beginner. Saying it's C++
| means some beginners will assume you can use standard lib
| like cout or printf.
| 1718627440 wrote:
| You can use that though. Using the file system will cause
| runtime errors. The Arduino IDE is just a glorified build
| system around gcc with a package manager. I recently ported
| the behaviour of the IDE to Makefiles and it wasn't
| actually that hard.
| munchler wrote:
| F# not listed at all? If that's accurate (color me doubtful),
| people are missing out on a great language that runs on a popular
| platform. Personally, after learning to love F#, I'm never going
| back to C#.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Unfortunely Microsoft has mostly behaved as if it was a mistake
| to add F# to Visual Studio 2010.
|
| Nowdays CLR seems to have changed meaning to C# Language
| Runtime.
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| I'm shocked, Java is so high up in all categories. I have never
| met a single Java programmer, though to be fair I started my
| career fairly recently.
| ileonichwiesz wrote:
| They're definitely underrepresented in most contexts where
| you'd meet other coders - but make no mistake, half the
| business world runs on Java, and it's still the main language
| taught in a lot of CS university programs.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| There are a lot of Java devs out there. At least 2 of the
| FAANGs are big on Java. Any big consultancy (Accenture, Cap
| Gemini, Fujitsu, Deloitte), is going to ship mostly Java too.
|
| I'm not a fan personally, but its easy to find devs in it, so
| its popular in firms where language choice is a
| commodity/utility
| brabel wrote:
| Hi I am a Java developer! Every company I ever worked at since
| 2008 used Java. At one point I learned many languages but still
| the only one that could get me a job was Java. To each their
| own bubble.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Hello there,
|
| using Java since it came out in 1996, alongside many other
| programming languages like C#, TypeScript, C++, SQL (PL/SQL and
| Transact-SQL mostly),
|
| Also Android is all about Java, even if Kotlin is the new
| darling and it uses its own runtime (ART), everything around it
| is based on the Java ecosystem, the IDE, build tools, most
| libraries coming out of Maven Central.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Never met Android developers? I'm not sure how much Kotlin has
| already taken over there, but if you develop for Android you'll
| have to deal with Java (for better or worse).
|
| Also for backend services Java is a pretty solid option. Just
| compile a monolithic JAR and 'run' that anywhere, which is much
| more robust than some node.js app cobbled together from tens of
| thousands of leftpad-equivalent npm packages ;)
| lordnacho wrote:
| It's an iceberg. Loads of things run on Java. C# as well, which
| is similar. Large ecosystems that you barely have to leave when
| you're inside. Also, a tendency to be corporate systems, which
| reduces the visibility, since people generally are not allowed
| to show their code from work.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| In the late 90s and most of the 00s, I'd say that you had a
| 50/50 chance of the code being either Java or C++, in any
| traditional (non-webdev) enterprise setting.
|
| So, so much 00s enterprise legacy code is written in Java. In
| the early/mid 10s I saw a huge push to rewrite that code,
| though.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > In the early/mid 10s I saw a huge push to rewrite that
| code, though.
|
| In what language?
| jibal wrote:
| I've never been to China but I can't imagine drawing an
| inference about the existence of China or its inhabitants from
| my personal experience.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| This looks very underwhelming considering it is on the ieee
| website. It is more like a low effort clickbait blogpost for ads
| bberrry wrote:
| Those of you surprised to see Java so prominent, where have you
| been all your careers? 10 people startups with nodejs backends?
| You must have been entirely shielded from enterprise software
| companies.
| 8fingerlouie wrote:
| Java is the new COBOL.
|
| The financial sector, insurance sector, healthcare sector all
| jumped on Java a couple of decades ago, and they have massive
| repositories of Java code, and are actively migrating their
| COBOL code to Java.
| osullivj wrote:
| I've said this myself as Java's reification of mid 90s OO and
| poor interop via JNI are not to my taste. But I've spent
| 25yrs in banking with JPMC, BoA, Barclays et al. Done lots of
| interop with Cobol on S/390, AS/400 and VME. Never heard of
| any of those systems being rewritten in Java. Have
| encountered key mainframe prod systems for which source is
| lost.
| asplake wrote:
| I know of one investment bank (a former employer) that
| rewrote its mainframe-based settlement system in Java (on
| Linux). Front office systems were often Java (replacing
| Obj-C in some cases).
|
| That was two decades ago - almost a generation! Interesting
| to think that some of those systems would now be considered
| "legacy".
| gf000 wrote:
| There are even whole companies specialized in semi-
| automatic migration of cobol to java.
| cess11 wrote:
| I might be mistaken but as I understand it COBOL never had
| the reach that Java does. It's everywhere, from embedded
| systems to massive clusters, as bulky VM, slimmed down VM or
| native. Business, science, recreation, the sector almost
| doesn't matter, it's going to have Java somewhere in there.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Yeah, isn't SAP built with Java? Stodgy old big bloated. The
| new COBOL. Oracle/Java/SAP. Some kind of trinity of evil.
| bberrry wrote:
| So is Netflix. Silly take
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| So is most every corporation? What is point? Have you had
| to implement SAP? Nobody is happy.
| ramblerman wrote:
| You seem to be saying that SAP sucks because of how
| enterprise java is.
|
| That would make OPs counter re netflix relevant. I don't
| understand your point
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Wasn't this whole thread about joking that Java is the
| new COBOL? And a lot of enterprises use Java and that is
| becoming the new entrenched/old/stodgy language that the
| hot new kids don't want to use?
|
| In its day, a lot of 'cool' companies used COBOL, back
| then. Because it was an ok solution, back then. So to
| say, today, Netflix is cool and uses Java, thus Java is
| different and still cool, is not valid. Does not
| invalidate the point. It is the same situation, just
| decades later.
|
| Maybe shouldn't have conflated SAP, but they seem to be
| just all part of the same giant ecosystem of
| 'current/entrenched' solution that 'we use because we
| have to, not because it is better'. Not unlike COBOL.
| spicybbq wrote:
| > Java is the new COBOL.
|
| What do you mean by this? To me it sounds like people are
| saying they are both "old" languages, but I don't know what
| _you_ mean.
|
| I work in a shop that has lots of both Java and COBOL. We are
| not "actively migrating" COBOL code to Java. It looks like
| mainframes will continue to exist for decades to come (i.e.
| >20 more years). Obviously, brand new applications here are
| not written in COBOL.
| bjackman wrote:
| It's a weird one - I've been at Google for more than 5 years. I
| know from the stats that we have a zillion lines of actively
| developed Java, there must be huge swathes of the company that
| you could even call a "Java shop". I dig into random bits of
| code all the time. And yet I've looked at Java maybe three
| times in my tenure. And if I needed to submit Java code, I
| would not have a single contact to ping for readability review.
|
| Java was the first language I learned in my CS degree, I still
| think this was a sensible choice by the CS department, but I
| don't think I've written a single piece of Java since I left 10
| years ago!
|
| It seems like a lot of Java usecases may be big and important
| but kinda isolated! Something about where they sit in the
| economic value chain perhaps?
| yolo3000 wrote:
| So what are the main languages there? Go? Python?
| melodyogonna wrote:
| C++ is my guess
| fuzztester wrote:
| I've read that C++, Java, Python, JavaScript, and recently
| Golang are the main languages used at Google.
|
| Edit: And maybe some Dart and Kotlin too.
| munksbeer wrote:
| What products do you work on and what language?
| bjackman wrote:
| I work on stuff that's adjacent to system software (I'm
| actually mostly a kernel engineer). But I've touched code
| in all the major languages at Google: loads of C++ and Go,
| much less of Python and Typescript. But Java/Kotlin is the
| only one I've never touched at all.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Anyone who is surprised is not from Finance sector. I wouldn't
| just say enterprise though because there could be non-finance
| enterprises where Microsoft and .NET/C# rule.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Also in telecom and largeISP, Java is everywhere.
| librasteve wrote:
| I see Raku has surpassed Erlang and Clojure. https://raku.org
| zerr wrote:
| Clojure is not a thing outside the HN bubble.
| skydhash wrote:
| All the functional programming suffers the same curse. Apart
| from a small set of libraries (usually standards and pure
| algorithms), it's much faster to write your integration than
| to bring someone else version. And it's often easy to vendor
| the logic you need. You won't see the minipackages from
| JS/Rust world or the big libraries from C++/Java.
|
| You write something and it stays written, mostly because
| everyone moves the logic far away from accidental
| complexities, so maintainance is very low.
| dysoco wrote:
| I've seen certain fintechs using Clojure and I'm not even in
| a tech hub, I'm in South America. Not to say there are many,
| but definitively I've seen 0 jobs for Raku.
|
| Clojure seems more popular than other FP languages such as
| Haskell or even F#
| ralphc wrote:
| I had to look up Solidity, which I've never heard of but see is
| at least 10x popular. It's sole reason to exist is for
| Ethereum.
| dvh wrote:
| Boy those Erlang people are sure loud, I was expecting it in top
| 15.
| nesarkvechnep wrote:
| Loud and well paid, according to SO.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| The PHP ranking makes 0 sense. Are they...not counting websites
| or something?
| ksec wrote:
| Comparing 2024 and 2025, Ruby is growing again but still on the
| lower end of spectrum.
|
| Both Java the language and JVM is great. A lot of the important
| work for JVM just landed. I am not even sure if there are
| anything that is really _missing_ anymore. But the whole
| ecosystem is so vast I wonder if anyone would want to just craft
| out a subset of Java.
|
| No Zig, Crystal, Odin, but Julia and Elixir is there just without
| numbers.
| zeeqeen wrote:
| I think it is because that the application framework of Google
| Android is JVM. And JNI is so annoying that binding Kotlin and
| other system-level programming language other than C++ like
| Rust, Zig for a Android app is so hard.
|
| For game engine developers that works for their game targeting
| Android, especially for commercial mature game, you have no
| choice but Unity engine. And take a look at Google announce [a
| donation of $250,000 to the Rust Foundation](https://www.linked
| in.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7376353...) but there still
| constraint on using Rust library for Android app.
| casey2 wrote:
| Shell is the most popular programming language I don't care what
| your list says, it has some 6-12 Billion users which is very
| impressive
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's not really a general purpose programming language though.
| (I know some people treat it as if it is, but they are idiots.)
| psychoslave wrote:
| > AI assistance means that programmers can concern themselves
| less and less with the particulars of any language.
|
| Sure. Until we need to. Then we face some apparently tiny
| concern, which is actually deeply intricated with the rest of
| this whole mess, and we are ready for a ride in the rabbit hole.
|
| > most developers today don't pay much attention to the
| instruction sets and other hardware idiosyncrasies of the CPUs
| that their code runs on, which language a program is vibe coded
| in ultimately becomes a minor detail.
|
| This can be very misguided from my part but I have the feeling
| they are two very different cases here. Ok, not everyone is a
| ffmpeg level champion who will thrive in code-golfing ASM til the
| last drop of cycle gain.
|
| But there are also probably reasons why third-generation
| programming language lasted without any other subsequent proposal
| completely displacing them. It's all about a tradeoff of
| expressiveness and precision. What we want to keep in the focus
| zone, and what we want to delegate to mostly uncontrolled
| details.
|
| If to go faster we need to get rid of a transparent glasses, we
| will need very sound and solid alternative probes to report
| what's going on ahead.
| mattsahr wrote:
| >> ...deeply intricated with... I think you invented a new
| phrase. And it's a good one!
| louthy wrote:
| >> most developers today don't pay much attention to the
| instruction sets and other hardware idiosyncrasies of the CPUs
| that their code runs on, which language a program is vibe coded
| in ultimately becomes a minor detail.
|
| If it was even slightly true then we wouldn't be generating
| language syntax at all, we'd be generating raw machine code for
| the chip architectures we want to support. Or even just
| distributing the prompts and letting an AI VM generate the
| target machine code later.
|
| That may well happen one day, but we're not even close right
| now
| skydhash wrote:
| Also there's so much patching in the kernel (for unix) to
| solve hardware bugs. And a lot of languages depends on C
| (with all its footguns) to probide that stable foundation.
| It's all unseen work that are very important.
| forinti wrote:
| Oh dear. Using AI for something you don't understand well is
| surely a recipe for disaster and should not be encouraged.
| epolanski wrote:
| Your comment lacks so much context and nuance to ultimately
| be nonsense.
|
| You absolutely can, and probably _should_, leverage AI to
| learn many things you don't understand at all.
|
| Simple example: try picking up or learning a programming
| language like C with or without LLMs. With is going to be
| much more efficient. C is one of the languages that LLMs have
| seen the most, they are very, very good at it for learning
| purposes (also at bug hunting).
|
| I have never learned as much about computing as in the last
| 7/8 months of using LLMs to assist me at summarizing, getting
| information, finding bugs, explaining concepts iteratively
| (99% of Software books are crap: poorly written and quickly
| outdated, often wrong), scanning git repositories for
| implementation details, etc.
|
| You people keep committing the same mistake over and over:
| there's a million uses to LLMs, and instead of defining the
| context of what you're discussing about you conflate
| everything with vibe coding making ultimately your comments
| nonsense.
| forinti wrote:
| My context is that I have seen some colleagues try to make
| up for not having expertise with a particular technology by
| using LLMs and ultimately they have managed to waste their
| time and other people's time.
|
| If you want to use LLMs for learning, that's altogether a
| different proposition.
| epolanski wrote:
| I kinda knew what you meant, but I also feel it is
| important to provide the nuance and context.
| 300hoogen wrote:
| seems like a significant skill/intelligence issue.
| someone i know made a web security/pentesting company
| without ANY prior knowledge in programming or security in
| general.
|
| and his shit actually works by the way, topping
| leaderboards on hackerone and having a decent amount of
| clients.
|
| your colleagues might be retarded or just don't know how
| to use llms
| agentultra wrote:
| Would you recognize a memory corruption bug when the LLM
| cheerfully reports that everything is perfect?
|
| Would you understand why some code is less performant than
| it could be if you've never written and learned any C
| yourself? How would you know if the LLM output is
| gibberish/wrong?
|
| They're not _wrong_ ; it's just not black-and-white. LLMs
| happen to sometimes generate what you want. Often times,
| for experienced programmers who can recognize good C code,
| the LLMs generate too much garbage for the tokens it costs.
|
| I think some people are also arguing that some programmers
| ought to still be trained in and experienced with the
| fundamentals of computing. We shouldn't be abandoning that
| skill set completely. Some one will still need to know how
| the technology works.
| epolanski wrote:
| Not sure how your comments relates to mine.
|
| The parent I answered said you shouldn't use LLMs for
| things you don't understand while I advocate you should
| use them to help you learn.
|
| You seem to describe very different use cases.
|
| In any case, just to answer your (unrelated to mine)
| comment, here[1] you can see a video of one of the most
| skilled C developers on the planet finding very hard to
| spot bugs in the Redis codebase.
|
| If all your arguments boil down to "lazy people are lazy
| and misuse LLMs" that's not a criticism of LLMs but of
| their lack of professionalism.
|
| Humans are responsible for AI slop, not AI. Skilled
| developers are enhanced by such a great tool that they
| know how and when to use.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCIZflYEpEk
| agentultra wrote:
| I was commenting on relying completely on the LLM when
| learning a language like C when you don't have any prior
| understanding of C.
|
| How do people using LLMs this way know that the generated
| code/text doesn't contain errors or misrepresentations?
| How do they find out?
| pjmorris wrote:
| I've posted this before, but I think it will be a perennial
| comment and concern:
|
| Excerpted from Tony Hoare's 1980 Turing Award speech, 'The
| Emperor's Old Clothes'... "At last, there breezed into my
| office the most senior manager of all, a general manager of
| our parent company, Andrew St. Johnston. I was surprised
| that he had even heard of me. "You know what went wrong?"
| he shouted--he always shouted-- "You let your programmers
| do things which you yourself do not understand." I stared
| in astonishment. He was obviously out of touch with present
| day realities. How could one person ever understand the
| whole of a modern software product like the Elliott 503
| Mark II software system? I realized later that he was
| absolutely right; he had diagnosed the true cause of the
| problem and he had planted the seed of its later solution."
|
| My interpretation is that whether shifting from delegation
| to programmers, or to compilers, or to LLMs, the invariant
| is that we will always have to understand the consequences
| of our choices, or suffer the consequences.
|
| Applied to your specific example, yes, LLMs can be a good
| assistants for learning. I would add that triangulation
| against other sources and against empirical evidence is
| always necessary before one can trust that learning.
| falcor84 wrote:
| My take is that you should be using AI for exactly the same
| things that you would ask someone a random contractor to do
| for you, knowing that they won't be there to maintain it
| later.
| ttfvjktesd wrote:
| On the other hand, one can see it as another layer of
| abstraction. Most programmers are not aware of how the
| assembly code generated from their programming language
| actually plays out, so they rely on the high-level language
| as an abstraction of machine code.
|
| Now we have an additional layer of abstraction, where we can
| instruct an LLM in natural language to write the high-level
| code for us.
|
| natural language -> high level programming language ->
| assembly
|
| I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad, but I can see
| the bigger picture here.
| ptrhvns wrote:
| Assembly is generally generated deterministically. LLM code
| is not.
| ttfvjktesd wrote:
| Different compiler versions, target architectures, or
| optimization levels can generate substantially different
| assembly from the same high-level program. Determinism is
| thus very scoped, not absolute.
|
| Also almost every software has know unknowns in terms of
| dependencies that gets permanently updated. No one can
| read all of its code. Hence, in real life if you compile
| on different systems (works on my machine) or again but
| after some time has passed (updates to compiler, os libs,
| packages) you will get a different checksum for your
| build with unchanged high level code that you have
| written. So in theory given perfect conditions you are
| right, but in practice it is not the case.
|
| There are established benchmarks for code generation
| (such as HumanEval, MBPP, and CodeXGLUE). On these, LLMs
| demonstrate that given the same prompt, the vast majority
| of completions are consistent and pass unit tests. For
| many tasks, the same prompt will produce a passing
| solution over 99% of the time.
|
| I would say yes there is a gap in determinism, but it's
| not as huge as one might think and it's getting closer as
| time progresses.
| somethingsome wrote:
| Take into account that this is posted on IEEE.
|
| In my opinion, their target audience are scientists rather than
| programmers, and a scientist most often think of code as a tool
| to express his ideas (hence, perfect AI generated code is kind
| of a graal). The faster he can express them, even if the code
| is ugly, the better. He does not care to reuse the code later
| most of the time.
|
| I have the hint that scientists and not programmers are the
| target audience as other things may trigger only one category
| but not the other, for example, they consider Arduino a
| language, This makes totally sense for scientists, as most of
| the ones using Arduino dont necessarily know C++, but are proud
| to be able to code in Arduino.
| jimbokun wrote:
| That's a good point.
|
| For a professional programmer, code and what it does is the
| object of study. Saying the programmer shouldn't look at the
| code is very odd.
| thfuran wrote:
| But reproducibility is famously a matter of some concern to
| scientists.
| fhd2 wrote:
| Sure, but their tools are complexity management tools:
| Hypotheses, experiments, empirical evidence, probabilities.
| To my knowledge, they deal far less with the determism
| programmers rely on. It's reproducible if you get similar
| results with the same probability.
| bitwize wrote:
| If code is actually viewed as a tool to express ideas, making
| it easy to read and figure out should be a goal.
| somethingsome wrote:
| I like programming, I like clean code, so it's something I
| struggled with when I began research.
|
| But actually, producing easy to read code when you don't
| have specifications, because you don't know yet if the idea
| will work, and you are discovering problems on that idea as
| you go doesn't lead to readable code naturally.
|
| You refactor all the time, but then something that you
| misunderstood becomes a concern, and you need to refactorer
| again everything, and again and again.. You loose much
| time, and research is fast paced.
|
| Scientists that spend too much time cleaning code often
| miss deadlines and deliverables that are actually what they
| need to produce. Nobody cares about their code, as when the
| idea is fully developed, other scientist will just rewrite
| a better software with full view of the problem. (some
| scientists rewrite their full software when everything is
| discovered)
|
| I think a sensible goal would be easy to write code instead
| of easy to read for scientists.
| thfuran wrote:
| But if you are iterating on code and using an LLM without
| even looking at the code, there's a reasonable chance
| that when you prompt "okay, now handle factor y also",
| you end up with code that handles factor y but also
| handles pre-existing factor x differently for no good
| reason. And scientific work is probably more likely than
| average programming to be numerics stuff where seemingly
| innocuous changes to how things are computed can have
| significant impacts due to floats being generally
| unfriendly.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| > This can be very misguided from my part but I have the
| feeling they are two very different cases here
|
| They are indeed very different. If your compiler doesn't emit
| the right output for your architecture, or the highly optimized
| library you imported breaks on your hardware, you file a bug
| and, depending on the third party, have help in fixing the
| issue. Additionally, those types of issues are rare in popular
| libraries and languages unless you're pushing boundaries, which
| likely means you are knowledgeable enough to handle those type
| of edge cases anyway.
|
| If your AI gives you the wrong answer to a question, or outputs
| incorrect code, it's entirely on you to figure it out. You
| can't reach out to OpenAI or Anthropic to help you fix the
| issue.
|
| The former allows you to pretty safely remain ignorant. The
| latter does not.
| melasadra wrote:
| Java still so popular after all this time. I've been re-learning
| java using the excellent University of Helsinki's MOOC course.
|
| Was thinking of learning some spring boot and create a small
| project or two to reinforce what I've learned. However it feels
| like tutorials for spring boot is of so much lower quality
| compared to newer language/frameworks like JS/React/Python. Often
| times it's just a talking head over a powerpoint presentation
| talking for 30 minutes.
|
| Could people recommend me a good tutorial for spring boot (or
| anything java that is being used in enterprises)?
| watwut wrote:
| I think that java has more of a written culture then make the
| video culture.
| nunobrito wrote:
| Oh, please run away from Spring Boot. It is just the new JBoss.
| That is OK if you want to get inside enterprise software for a
| living, but that isn't the best usage for Java.
|
| My opinion: learn to create Android apps in Java. Tutorials are
| good and you get a new set of skills (if not already). After
| that, focus on learning POJO which is the fundamental knowledge
| in Java.
|
| Everyone writes stuff in Java/C++ where I work, but less and
| less Spring Boot is encouraged because of the bloat do debug
| and performance troubles.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > I've been re-learning java using the excellent University of
| Helsinki's MOOC course.
|
| This sounds interesting! Can you share a link?
| ramblerman wrote:
| I truly don't understand this on a tech forum. You have 6000
| karma, is this a bot interaction to promote votes?
|
| How does searching "Helsinki MOOC java" not immediately give
| you the result you are after?
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| I mean :/ Let me be devil's advocate, You have added yet
| another comment without actually giving a link to that...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFrggyDXdUk&list=PL2s7AeEJ2
| f...
|
| And I mean, I do feel like that as long as they aren't
| actively harming the "ethos" of hackernews, then we can cut
| each other a little slack each other
|
| I feel like I have sometimes done a disservice like this
| too to HN where I ask for links sometimes and maybe they
| just wanted to confirm if this was the right course or they
| might be coming from a job tired and didn't think this tooo
| much y'know?
|
| But i mean I also understand your standpoint that you want
| less clutter on HN which is why I feel a bit :/
| ramblerman wrote:
| I was questioning if OP was a karma farming bot, have a
| look at their profile. It's a lot of these odd one liner
| questions.
|
| From the perspective of a useful thread, I agree with you
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Ahh, just checked it and I think you might be correct but
| here's my nuanced take
|
| Yeah I can also understand it, but I just saw their
| comments and scrolled down to find it ``` Nah, DotNET is
| amazing these days. At the risk of starting a holy war,
| it is neck-and-neck with Java, and I say that as a Java
| fanboi. I think it is good to have healthy competition
| between languages (and ecosystems), like C++ and Rust
| (and a little bit Zig) or GCC and Clang or Java and
| DotNet or Python and Ruby or NodeJS and Deno. Plenty of
| people are compiling and deploying to Linux after
| DotNetCore went open source. Plus, you can use JetBrains
| Rider, which is a cross-platform IDE for C#, from the
| makers of IntelliJ ```
|
| It just seems that their use of words like boi etc. makes
| them (genz?-ish)
|
| I am genz too (maybe younger than them, still in HS) but
| yeah maybe they just write one liners which can be quite
| common but I see that more on the reddit kind of things
| and not hackernews lol. I can definitely see our
| generation's attention span being cooked that when I
| write remotely as long as this, they say nah I ain't
| reading it. So well, how are they gonna write it for the
| most part :/
|
| It might be a bot but then again, what is the point? The
| point I see of HN points is that I might create a new
| account and be the same guy and kind of accrue them back
| because I once had it y'know while being myself not
| writing some one liners lol.
|
| The fact that I like about HN is that I have talked to
| soooo many people that I admire whether its a one liner
| from jose valim or etc. and I am happy that hackernews
| exists to a somewhat degree :>
|
| Like just out of curiosity, has someone ever got any job
| or smth through HN in the sense that they had their karma
| in part of their resume and the company was impressed
| lol, I can see it to a somewhat degree in maybeee
| startups
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| I copy pasted it in to google. The first result might be it
| but it says "Please note, that this is a legacy course. ...
| The course content is also no longer updated or
| maintained."
|
| No hint on how old and moldy it is. Does it teach a
| relatively recent Java or 1995 Java?
|
| So asking if that is the right one doesn't seem out of
| line.
| ratStallion wrote:
| This site has great tutorials for Java and Spring:
|
| https://www.marcobehler.com/courses/spring-professional
| spapas82 wrote:
| What's really interesting is the place of Elixir (below Cobol and
| ABAP) and more of less the same as Ada. This is very
| controversial when comparing it with other indexes where, for
| example Elixir is the most beloved programming language or the
| language that most people wanna use. Also compare it with the
| number of Elixir posts on the front page of hn.
|
| Any idea how could it be explained?
| dayvster wrote:
| Cool but I don't know how credible this information is. From what
| I've read on how they got that data and came to these numbers it
| does not exactly inspire a high degree of confidence
| PikelEmi wrote:
| Arduino as a programming language?
| brainzap wrote:
| interesting how high c# is despite nothing going on, on github
| mrsmrtss wrote:
| That's partially attributed to the fact that .NET is a truly
| batteries included solution and quality of it is generally good
| enough that there is no need for second or third alternatives
| for every basic thing.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| I don't doubt your comment, but I immediately thought to
| compare to Java. Why does Java have exactly what you mention
| -- "second or third alternatives for every basic thing"? Is
| it easily explained by age as a language? Also, can you
| provide a concrete example of something that .NET includes in
| the core that Java does not?
| metaltyphoon wrote:
| If I were to ask you, how many APIs do you think "core"
| (w/e you consider core) does Java have. Think of a number
| before opening the link below and then let me know what you
| had in mind.
|
| https://apisof.net/
| mrsmrtss wrote:
| Generally .NET's "out-of-the-box" experience is comparable
| to using Java with a framework like Spring, as it includes
| a built-in DI container, a modern ORM (Entity Framework), a
| complete web stack (ASP.NET) with the high-performance web
| server (Kestrel) and so on. Because these first-party tools
| receive strong support from both Microsoft and the
| community and set a very high standard, which likely
| reduces the incentive for third-party alternatives to
| emerge. Of course, there are also many quality third-party
| solutions, but these mostly cover areas that are not
| covered well by .NET. You could happily build a lot of
| things using only .NET, without needing any third-party
| dependencies.
| skor wrote:
| compare it to 2024, why the fall of javascript?
|
| https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2024
| gervwyk wrote:
| Why is Yaml not on the list?
| reaperducer wrote:
| I enjoy seeing FORTRAN and COBOL ranking above Clojure.
| Antibabelic wrote:
| Clojure being so low, including below Prolog of all things, is
| so obviously wrong.
| ux266478 wrote:
| As a professional user of Prolog I'm feeling pretty smug over
| this morning's coffee.
| mkovach wrote:
| Ahh, yes. In college, the CS department used Turbo Pascal
| (hint, I'm old). My first programming gigs out of college were
| FORTRAN and COBOL. It's nice to see that they are still
| registering.
|
| Now, time for a Metamucil and a nice nap before my standup.
| chunkyguy wrote:
| If there is HTML in the list then why not JSON?
| latexr wrote:
| It's unreasonably distracting to me that the links on this
| webpage _repeatedly_ (but not always) include the preceding or
| following space. It looks really sloppy. How do you even to that
| so much on a webpage, was this typed on a WYSIWYG editor?
| perfmode wrote:
| I wish Python weren't so popular. Really miss compile-time type
| checking.
| bluecalm wrote:
| As others are pointing out here use type annotations + Mypi
| integrated with your IDE or CI. Imo a bigger problem with
| Python is that it's very slow and if that becomes a problem
| it's hard to solve.
| aylons wrote:
| I'm just happy that both VHDL and ADA are in the list.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Something feels off about these rankings, and comparing to lat
| year's stack overflow survey (albeit also potentially not a super
| accurate accounting), I'm left wondering if their sampling
| methods are at all accurate.
|
| https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/technology#most-popular...
|
| Even with a big uptick in Python and Java due to AI, I don't see
| Javascript+Typescript losing that much ground year-over-year.
| sega_sai wrote:
| It is an interesting study. In terms of new languages and AI, I
| would like to see if anyone comes up with a more AI friendly
| language, as opposed to human friendly. I.e. programming
| languages were often designed to be easier to read/write for
| people, but maybe it makes sense to think of languages where it
| would be harder for AI to make a mistake.
| ZhadruOmjar wrote:
| I agree that we are only going to see solidification of languages
| due to tools like Claude Code. Why would I take a risk on
| something new if I can't use a much faster tool, it can already
| be such a battle getting adoption in mid/large companies. I
| wonder how a release like React would fare if it was released in
| another 5-10 years once LLMs are deeply embedded.
| satiated_grue wrote:
| Is anybody developing programming languages designed specifically
| as LLM "source" code targets?
| pcdoodle wrote:
| VB6 never dies
| lunias wrote:
| Python at number 1 makes me cringe... In my experience, Python is
| not a language that I would use for anything other than a script
| or some solo PoC. I would absolutely never use it on code
| expected to exceed 1000 lines, code that's maintained by more
| than one person, or code that takes more than a few seconds to
| run. Python has a lot of great libraries as a result of it being
| the language of choice to teach non software engineers at
| university. A lot of smart people contribute to the ecosystem,
| but I wish they would focus their efforts elsewhere. Preferably
| pick any complied, strongly typed, static language that supports
| multi-threading.
| phplovesong wrote:
| PHP just seems to drop lower each year. Looks like there is
| little to gain from using PHP in 2025
| mmphosis wrote:
| https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/24825595/embed
| phplovesong wrote:
| Is PHP including wordpress and the other ones like drupal (not
| sure anyone uses that garbage anymore)? If yes, then should not
| PHP and Python also be included as C projects?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-24 23:01 UTC)