Steve Vinoski's Blog

Multilingual programming is one of my all-time favorite topics, and I feel very strongly that software developers should be adept at multiple programming languages. Developers need to be able to apply whatever language in their arsenal best suits the problem at hand, and perhaps even quickly learn a new language if what they already know doesn’t fit.

Too many developers seem to think that familiarity with one general-purpose language is good enough, but it isn’t. Knowing one language forces you to try to bend or change problems to fit whatever that language happens to be. That’s like trying to solve a problem by choosing a data structure or algorithm to use without ever considering the nature or details of the problem.

One of my favorite quotes on this topic is from Steve Yegge:

…an “X programmer”, for any value of X, is a weak player. You have to cross-train to be a decent athlete these days. Programmers need to be fluent in multiple languages with fundamentally different “character” before they can make truly informed design decisions.

Yes indeed.

Too many developers also come up with weak excuses for not learning new programming languages, most of them being just different ways of saying, “But it’s different from the language I already know!” Don’t whine about the differences — instead, learn to appreciate them and take advantage of them.

I’ve hinted at the fact that I like this topic in previous issues of my Internet Computing column when I covered the usefulness and applicability of languages such as JavaScript and E4X, Ruby (twice), and Erlang (also twice) for middleware and integration projects. My latest column, entitled “Multilingual Programming” (PDF), attempts to provide a few reasons why knowing and being able to apply multiple languages can be highly beneficial. As always, I welcome comments and feedback.

[Update: if you prefer not to read PDF, this column is now also available online in HTML.]

In my Jan/Feb Internet Computing column, Serendipitous Reuse (PDF), I talked about interface coupling and the benefits of REST’s uniform interface constraint. I find that whenever you discuss that topic, though, REST detractors tend to say, “Well, you’re just pushing the coupling problems to the data.”

The problem with that assertion is that it assumes coupling is a fixed constant — if you eliminate it from one point, whatever you’ve gotten rid of just has to pop up somewhere elsewhere, like some sort of strange “Conservation of Coupling” law. Of course, that’s not true. In my latest column, Demystifying RESTful Data Coupling (PDF), I turn my attention to this claim and explain how RESTful data works, and why it too, like RESTful interfaces, reduces coupling when compared to WS-* and other similar approaches.

Constructive feedback welcomed, as always.

Reusability is often promoted not only as a goal but also as a feature of all kinds of software architectures, designs, and systems. For example, in the CORBA, WS-*, and SOA worlds I formerly haunted, everyone spoke nonchalantly of reuse as if it were a given. You were supposed to simply identify the objects or services required to support your business processes, and then specify their interfaces. Then, anyone wanting to provide one or more of those objects or services was merely supposed to follow the appropriate interfaces and write implementations for them. Applications were written to the interfaces and thus were automatically decoupled from the implementations. As a result of these reusable interfaces, you could also potentially reuse the objects and services that implemented them, as well as the applications that consumed them.

Problem is, it never seemed to work out as easily as that. Most of the time, the interfaces people came up with were just too specific, and nobody could agree to apply them widely. Think of all the time people spent over the years in OMG, JSR, and W3C WS meetings trying to agree on just the infrastructure interfaces and not always succeeding. It’s therefore not surprising that there was never much success at defining broadly-accepted standard interfaces up at the application level; the scope is simply far too wide up there.

So, with technologies that promote interface variability, planned reuse is pretty hard. Consequently, serendipitous reuse, where services and facilities can be combined and reused beneficially in unforeseen ways, is virtually out of the question.

Stu Charlton’s blog was where I first saw those terms used, and I found them very enlightening. So did Bob Warfield.

One of the first things that attracted me to REST was the uniform interface constraint. Mark Baker first brought it to my attention nearly 8 years ago, and before I looked at it, I thought it was just a bad idea, like a totally generic doIt() interface, devoid of any meaningful semantics. But of course, there’s much more to it than that. The HTTP interface, for example, strikes a great balance that allows it to be efficiently reused across a very wide variety of applications. And when such a uniform interface is reused, the applications that use it stand a much better chance of being reusable themselves than if they were written against a non-uniform application-specific interface.

My latest Internet Computing column, entitled Serendipitous Reuse (and here’s the pdf if you prefer), explores how the uniform interface contributes to reuse of both the planned and serendipitous kinds.

You’ve probably heard a lot by now about Erlang’s concurrency capabilities, and in fact that’s what I covered in my Sept./Oct. Internet Computing “Toward Integration” column, Concurrency with Erlang. But concurrency is only part of the story — Erlang also provides outstanding support for building highly-reliable software. My latest column, Reliability with Erlang, first describes some of the problems that highly-reliable systems face, and then explains some of Erlang’s core primitives that provide a solid foundation for reliable systems. It’s available in HTML and PDF formats.

BTW, I can’t recommend enough that you pick up a copy of Joe Armstrong’s Programming Erlang. It’s a truly excellent book that has deeply and positively affected the way I think about designing, building, and implementing software systems. As I mentioned in my columns, my only disappointment with Erlang is that I didn’t discover it 10 years ago when it was first open-sourced, as it could have saved me a ton of time and trouble in my middleware development efforts over the years.