0:00:27.000,0:00:34.900
HEMANT KUMAR: So I would ask our panelists[br]to come forward and chat.

0:00:34.920,0:00:41.270
So Chad is, Chad Fowler is the author of The[br]Passionate Programmer

0:00:41.270,0:00:45.070
and he has been a-

0:00:45.070,0:00:46.940
CHAD FOWLER: Yes?

0:00:46.940,0:00:51.560
H.K.: He's been like, he's one of the oldest,

0:00:51.560,0:00:55.970
one of the oldest Ruby guys around. He's embarrassing[br]me.

0:00:55.970,0:01:01.870
C.F.: I'm one of the oldest people here. Thank[br]you Colby (00:01:00).

0:01:01.870,0:01:08.630
H.K.: And next, Yogi. Yogi is principal architect[br]of Flipkart

0:01:08.630,0:01:13.759
and he has obviously worked in one of the[br]largest

0:01:13.759,0:01:20.759
deployment serve and supply chain in Ruby,[br]and yeah.

0:01:21.420,0:01:27.490
Next person I'm gonna ask is Baishampayan[br]Ghose, uh, BG.

0:01:27.490,0:01:30.889
Is he outside? Can you, can anyone? So. You[br]guys can sit.

0:01:30.889,0:01:36.740
C.F.: Yes, what?

0:01:36.740,0:01:38.889
H.K.: You guys can sit actually.

0:01:38.889,0:01:42.020
C.F.: He wants us to sit down. Sorry, I'll[br]sit.

0:01:42.020,0:01:47.079
H.K.: So, yeah, our next panelist is Baishampayan[br]Ghose.

0:01:47.079,0:01:49.539
He is a polyglot programmer

0:01:49.539,0:01:55.329
and he is CTO of Helpshift, a start-up running[br]from California.

0:01:55.329,0:02:02.329
And last I would like to call on Venkat Subramaniyan.

0:02:07.990,0:02:11.330
He is CEO of Mahaswami Software.

0:02:11.330,0:02:15.420
He has been programming in Ruby for like ten[br]years,

0:02:15.420,0:02:21.940
and for a real long time, so.

0:02:21.940,0:02:28.940
OK, so we'll start the panel discussion by[br]asking the panelists like,

0:02:30.530,0:02:36.650
what is your current language of choice primarily,[br]and why? Swami, Venkat.

0:02:36.650,0:02:41.970
Venkat Subramaniyan: OK, we use primarily[br]Ruby.

0:02:41.970,0:02:45.510
We've been using Ruby for the past, I mean,

0:02:45.510,0:02:48.780
writing bigger-sized products since six, seven[br]years.

0:02:48.780,0:02:51.450
But we use quite a bit of Java along with[br]it.

0:02:51.450,0:02:53.970
H.K.: Why? Like, why do you use it? (00:02:51)

0:02:53.970,0:02:58.080
V.S.: Well, see there is some very, like,

0:02:58.080,0:03:00.230
well-established libraries, like reporting[br]GINs,

0:03:00.230,0:03:02.650
and several stuff that you don't want to really,[br]you know,

0:03:02.650,0:03:04.290
try to match from the Ruby side.

0:03:04.290,0:03:06.460
So we just bring the best of both worlds by

0:03:06.460,0:03:08.040
cutting forward all the good libraries.

0:03:08.040,0:03:10.830
Jewels we have used quite a bit. Jasper reports.

0:03:10.830,0:03:13.570
These are all stuff for which there isn't[br]an equivalent exist,

0:03:13.570,0:03:15.890
and we just want to use the knowledge

0:03:15.890,0:03:18.660
and, you know, the well-established software[br]there,

0:03:18.660,0:03:24.700
for their purpose. So that's one of the main[br]reasons.

0:03:24.700,0:03:28.930
Baishampayan Ghose: So we use multiple languages,[br]but,

0:03:28.930,0:03:32.120
Closure is our main programming language of[br]choice.

0:03:32.120,0:03:34.680
We have been using it since I think late 2008.

0:03:34.680,0:03:40.750
We're one of the first companies to put Closure[br]into production.

0:03:40.750,0:03:42.760
We use Closure because a variety of reasons,[br]but,

0:03:42.760,0:03:49.130
I guess if I have to say name a few reasons,[br]that would be,

0:03:49.130,0:03:52.100
Closure lets me focus on the problem,

0:03:52.100,0:03:53.900
and it pretty much gets out of the way.

0:03:53.900,0:03:58.490
And there is a lot of focus on awesome things[br]like immutability,

0:03:58.490,0:04:04.160
data as a main construct for doing competition.

0:04:04.160,0:04:07.370
And of course it's a lisp so I get all the[br]power,

0:04:07.370,0:04:10.630
and it's also something that runs in the JVM,

0:04:10.630,0:04:15.510
so I can also leverage the awesome Java ecosystem.

0:04:15.510,0:04:16.839
So yeah, but, at the same time,

0:04:16.839,0:04:18.380
we do use different languages for different[br]needs.

0:04:18.380,0:04:22.350
We have used Erlang in the past, we use Go[br]as well,

0:04:22.350,0:04:27.610
and of course there is JavaScript and a bunch[br]of other languages.

0:04:27.610,0:04:29.490
H.K.: So do you think like, let's say,

0:04:29.490,0:04:31.260
Closure doesn't seem to be right language[br]for

0:04:31.260,0:04:33.970
how to write utility to you know like

0:04:33.970,0:04:37.820
do something on my OS X, for example.

0:04:37.820,0:04:40.500
If I auto-install something or manage processes[br]or anything.

0:04:40.500,0:04:44.040
Do you think like it's a right tool for that[br]sort of thing?

0:04:44.040,0:04:47.580
B.G.: So, to build your, if you want to build[br]a small utility,

0:04:47.580,0:04:49.490
you'd need a faster start-up time,

0:04:49.490,0:04:51.350
and that problem is inherent in JVM.

0:04:51.350,0:04:54.510
It has nothing to do with Closure, per se.

0:04:54.510,0:04:57.370
But Closure also has something called Closure[br]Script,

0:04:57.370,0:04:59.530
which lets you write whatever code that you[br]want to write in Closure,

0:04:59.530,0:05:01.280
but then the compiler compiles it down to[br]JavaScript,

0:05:01.280,0:05:07.850
and basically you can create a node.js application[br]out of Closure code.

0:05:07.850,0:05:11.230
You get all the flexibility and constructs

0:05:11.230,0:05:14.250
to build abstractions that Closure provides,

0:05:14.250,0:05:18.440
but you can target, you know, different run-times.

0:05:18.440,0:05:21.990
So you can run, you can build a shell utility[br]as well.

0:05:21.990,0:05:22.740
C.F.: Do you actually do that?

0:05:22.740,0:05:24.710
Do you like write command line programs?

0:05:24.710,0:05:28.630
B.G.: We've done it a few times. We've done[br]it a few times.

0:05:28.630,0:05:30.460
It's not something that we publicly do, but[br]yeah,

0:05:30.460,0:05:33.300
Nailgun is another upload that you talked[br]about in your talk, right.

0:05:33.300,0:05:36.940
And, so yeah, so that's what we do.

0:05:36.940,0:05:37.889
But there are other hacks, like tweaking

0:05:37.889,0:05:39.290
the boot class paths in JVM to make the start[br]up times faster.

0:05:39.290,0:05:43.680
That's what something learning new is in Closure.

0:05:43.680,0:05:48.820
There are ways of getting it, but yeah, you[br]are,

0:05:48.820,0:05:52.990
in a way, right that, by default, it's, Closure[br]is probably not a,

0:05:52.990,0:05:57.490
not the right run time for building shell[br]utilities.

0:05:57.490,0:06:01.669
H.K.: OK, so, before we move to Chad, like,[br]you said like,

0:06:01.669,0:06:03.260
all the power of lisp actually,

0:06:03.260,0:06:04.380
so, can you elaborate on that?

0:06:04.380,0:06:05.370
What do you mean by all the power of Lisp?

0:06:05.370,0:06:09.590
B.G.: Sure. So, how many people use Emacs[br]here?

0:06:09.590,0:06:11.930
Twenty percent maybe. You do?

0:06:11.930,0:06:17.230
C.F.: No, I don't personally.

0:06:17.230,0:06:19.220
Never.

0:06:19.220,0:06:25.480
B.G.: Never? But you talked about Emacs

0:06:25.480,0:06:28.910
as well as good software systems.

0:06:28.910,0:06:32.210
C.F.: Not to use, though, just as an example.

0:06:32.210,0:06:36.760
B.G.: Just to talk a lot. Anyway, so Emacs[br]as a software

0:06:36.760,0:06:38.449
is thirty-five years old today,

0:06:38.449,0:06:43.370
and still is in production, so to speak,

0:06:43.370,0:06:44.090
you can still use it.

0:06:44.090,0:06:46.740
So, what can we learn from Emacs?

0:06:46.740,0:06:50.800
Well, the language is always available to[br]use,

0:06:50.800,0:06:53.949
right, so if you compare it with, let's say,

0:06:53.949,0:06:56.580
Python or Java, there is a difference between

0:06:56.580,0:06:59.540
compile time and run time. When you are running,

0:06:59.540,0:07:06.540
the language is not available to you.

0:07:06.710,0:07:09.590
You cannot, you know, manipulate the code[br]itself

0:07:09.590,0:07:14.820
while it is running, or generate new code,[br]dynamically.

0:07:14.820,0:07:21.820
So that is one thing that lisp dialect exploits[br]by design,

0:07:22.820,0:07:25.729
because they have something,

0:07:25.729,0:07:27.050
a property called homoiconicity,

0:07:27.050,0:07:29.650
which basically means that the code and data

0:07:29.650,0:07:30.360
are pretty much the same. Even though they[br]may not be identical,

0:07:30.360,0:07:30.490
but, for all practical purposes they are the[br]same.

0:07:30.490,0:07:33.919
That means when a Closure code is running,

0:07:33.919,0:07:36.250
it can manipulate itself while it's running,

0:07:36.250,0:07:38.370
and it can maybe generate new code, optimize[br]something away.

0:07:38.370,0:07:41.030
So basically it lets you write code which[br]writes more code,

0:07:41.030,0:07:42.250
so, and that is something which is always[br]preferable.

0:07:42.250,0:07:44.889
It is better to write a code that writes more[br]code

0:07:44.889,0:07:51.889
than to just write code. So, and there are[br]many other features

0:07:52.430,0:07:56.389
that lisp has, for example, the language itself[br]is so simple,

0:07:56.389,0:08:01.259
like there are just few primitives to understand[br]and learn about.

0:08:01.259,0:08:02.540
Syntax is pretty much non-existent,

0:08:02.540,0:08:04.009
and very simple to understand and learn.

0:08:04.009,0:08:09.139
And that really reduces a lot of cognitive[br]overload

0:08:09.139,0:08:09.900
that some languages might introduce.

0:08:09.900,0:08:11.970
So yeah, I mean, these are probably a few[br]superficial advantages.

0:08:11.970,0:08:17.699
I can go deep into it, but maybe we can talk[br]about it after.

0:08:17.699,0:08:24.699
H.K.: Yeah, so, Chad, like, what is your poison[br]of choice?

0:08:30.000,0:08:32.429
C.F.: My poison of choice?

0:08:32.429,0:08:34.669
H.K.: Yeah.

0:08:34.669,0:08:37.750
C.F.: I guess, it's hard to answer that question.

0:08:37.750,0:08:39.240
I don't have an answer, right?

0:08:39.240,0:08:43.549
The one single answer I could give you is[br]anything except for Ruby.

0:08:43.549,0:08:44.240
H.K.: OK.

0:08:44.240,0:08:49.170
C.F.: And I mean that very seriously.

0:08:49.170,0:08:53.670
I remember in 2007, I was at MountainWest[br]Ruby Conference,

0:08:53.670,0:08:57.440
the first one, that Coby was talking about[br]earlier,

0:08:57.440,0:09:00.520
and I did a keynote, my first- no, it wasn't[br]my first keynote,

0:09:00.520,0:09:02.330
it was my first Ruby Conference keynote.

0:09:02.330,0:09:06.020
It was about, like, what do we do next, after[br]Ruby?

0:09:06.020,0:09:10.260
And I was already deep in the like toil

0:09:10.260,0:09:13.520
and stress of being worried that I identified

0:09:13.520,0:09:16.310
too heavily with Ruby, in 2007.

0:09:16.310,0:09:19.120
So I wanted to like get out of the Ruby thing

0:09:19.120,0:09:21.480
and not be the Ruby guy,

0:09:21.480,0:09:23.890
and I'm still desperately trying to do that.

0:09:23.890,0:09:27.000
But, no, I mean, like, I said,

0:09:27.000,0:09:28.620
when I was speaking earlier,

0:09:28.620,0:09:35.620
I'm using Closure, Scala, Node, Java, Objective[br]C, Ruby, Erlang, everything,

0:09:35.760,0:09:40.490
at work right now. I think probably what I'll[br]learn next

0:09:40.490,0:09:42.610
really seriously is Objective C.

0:09:42.610,0:09:47.290
But I'm going to try to use it, even on the[br]server,

0:09:47.290,0:09:50.140
as like a language to develop services in,

0:09:50.140,0:09:52.300
just as an experiment so I can learn it better

0:09:52.300,0:09:55.089
and do better job on the clients.

0:09:55.089,0:09:58.200
H.K.: So like not Ruby?

0:09:58.200,0:10:01.450
Is it because like you already had kind of[br]a Ruby like,

0:10:01.450,0:10:02.390
you obviously work with Ruby as like with[br]the,

0:10:02.390,0:10:02.520
along with Dave Thomas, and all of these guys,

0:10:02.520,0:10:08.700
you were one of the earlier adopters of Ruby,[br]so like, are-

0:10:08.700,0:10:11.870
C.F.: Yeah, because I will never learn anything[br]else about Ruby,

0:10:11.870,0:10:13.540
cause I know everything.

0:10:13.540,0:10:17.740
No, it's- I'm always suspicious of myself

0:10:17.740,0:10:22.580
when I identify too heavily with anything[br]extrinsic to me.

0:10:22.580,0:10:24.490
Like for me to say I am a Ruby programmer-

0:10:24.490,0:10:27.700
if I say that, I feel bad, and I know that[br]I've made a mistake.

0:10:27.700,0:10:30.570
I know that I'm creating some rigidity of[br]value

0:10:30.570,0:10:36.200
that is ultimately counter productive to my[br]success

0:10:36.200,0:10:38.870
and to the success of people around me.

0:10:38.870,0:10:41.950
So like I've been doing more Java in the past[br]month

0:10:41.950,0:10:47.459
than Ruby, which I used to do full time in[br]1999.

0:10:47.459,0:10:49.760
And it's been a really good freeing thing,

0:10:49.760,0:10:53.230
like I am not a Ruby programmer, I am a programmer,

0:10:53.230,0:10:54.459
and even that is kind of limiting,

0:10:54.459,0:10:57.209
because I'm more and less than that at the[br]same time.

0:10:57.209,0:10:59.640
So it's not so much that I'm worried about[br]Ruby itself,

0:10:59.640,0:11:01.209
it's that I'm worried about putting myself

0:11:01.209,0:11:03.450
into a bucket that I can't get out of,

0:11:03.450,0:11:07.410
even if it's a subconscious problem.

0:11:07.410,0:11:13.580
H.K.: OK, Yogi. Yeah, so what do you-

0:11:13.580,0:11:14.330
Yogi Kulkarni: Sure.

0:11:14.330,0:11:16.740
So, if you're asking about personal choice[br]then,

0:11:16.740,0:11:19.279
sure, you know I like coding in Ruby.

0:11:19.279,0:11:21.839
I just love it because it's compact.

0:11:21.839,0:11:26.339
I feel the translation from my thoughts to[br]code is shortest in Ruby,

0:11:26.339,0:11:28.860
so it just feels very natural.

0:11:28.860,0:11:32.550
But that said, I think I've moved the last[br]seven years

0:11:32.550,0:11:37.040
from being a kind of a language geek, of sorts,

0:11:37.040,0:11:40.110
not really, but, I used to love program language[br]theory

0:11:40.110,0:11:42.029
and getting into stuff like that,

0:11:42.029,0:11:45.870
but to actually not caring too much about[br]it.

0:11:45.870,0:11:47.930
I think programming languages are good,

0:11:47.930,0:11:50.700
and they kind of get you excited,

0:11:50.700,0:11:54.600
but when it comes to actually solving hard[br]problems,

0:11:54.600,0:11:57.040
it's the ecosystem that matters around that[br]language.

0:11:57.040,0:11:59.959
Things like the tools, the profilers, the[br]monitoring tools,

0:11:59.959,0:12:03.519
debuggers, you know that's the stuff which[br]no language

0:12:03.519,0:12:06.080
is gonna save you when you're in production,[br]right.

0:12:06.080,0:12:06.920
So you just need to have that,

0:12:06.920,0:12:10.200
the maturity of an ecosystem is really important[br]there.

0:12:10.200,0:12:12.709
Which is why we keep going back to the JVM[br]over and over,

0:12:12.709,0:12:15.930
and even the new languages are being built[br]on the JVM as,

0:12:15.930,0:12:19.290
it's for exactly that reason.

0:12:19.290,0:12:21.399
But among the newer languages on the JVM,

0:12:21.399,0:12:25.080
I'm actually surprised that I've- so, I'm[br]kind of

0:12:25.080,0:12:26.209
intrigued by Closure and Scala.

0:12:26.209,0:12:28.990
We actually looked at Scala very carefully

0:12:28.990,0:12:32.230
for the system I spoke about.

0:12:32.230,0:12:36.269
But I didn't think it gave the kind of jump.

0:12:36.269,0:12:39.980
I felt was kind of marginal,

0:12:39.980,0:12:42.600
the improvement over just doing good Java,

0:12:42.600,0:12:44.680
that Scala gave, that's arguable.

0:12:44.680,0:12:47.290
There's a lot of language features there,

0:12:47.290,0:12:48.640
possibly too many language features,

0:12:48.640,0:12:51.560
which is one of my concerns.

0:12:51.560,0:12:53.209
But Closure, we looked at that also,

0:12:53.209,0:12:54.740
but we didn't look, we didn't actually

0:12:54.740,0:12:56.529
take it that seriously, because of basically

0:12:56.529,0:12:57.640
the prefix notation being too alien.

0:12:57.640,0:12:59.589
We wanted something block structured

0:12:59.589,0:13:04.200
for people moving from Java to Ruby.

0:13:04.200,0:13:05.760
So I think, yeah,

0:13:05.760,0:13:08.709
those are the kind of things that are on my[br]mind.

0:13:08.709,0:13:12.779
H.K.: OK. So, Ghose, do you- I'm gonna call[br]you BG, OK?

0:13:12.779,0:13:15.279
Yeah, so, BG, do you ever like,

0:13:15.279,0:13:19.190
the programming languages do not matter all[br]that much,

0:13:19.190,0:13:22.760
do you think the state of it are like if you[br]improved like-

0:13:22.760,0:13:28.190
B.G.: I'm told Alan Pearl is here,

0:13:28.190,0:13:32.140
and he basically said that programming language

0:13:32.140,0:13:36.019
basically shapes the way you think about solving[br]problems.

0:13:36.019,0:13:37.250
So even if you do not use Closure or Scala

0:13:37.250,0:13:37.570
or whatever fancy language that comes out,

0:13:37.570,0:13:42.459
you should try it out because ultimately

0:13:42.459,0:13:45.360
you're trying to solve a problem, right.

0:13:45.360,0:13:47.360
You have the problem at hand,

0:13:47.360,0:13:50.329
and you'd like to look at the problem from[br]different perspectives.

0:13:50.329,0:13:52.690
See if you only have one way of looking at[br]the problem,

0:13:52.690,0:13:56.149
then you know, by repeating the same approach[br]a

0:13:56.149,0:13:59.010
thousand times is not going to help you.

0:13:59.010,0:13:59.370
You should look at different ways of

0:13:59.370,0:14:00.200
maybe approaching the problem,

0:14:00.200,0:14:04.740
and even understanding the problem itself.

0:14:04.740,0:14:11.740
Simple example, parallel processing can be[br]done using threads.

0:14:13.370,0:14:16.070
You can use quarantines.

0:14:16.070,0:14:17.459
You can use CSB, you can use Actor.

0:14:17.459,0:14:18.290
What should I use, given any situation?

0:14:18.290,0:14:19.350
So even if that- if I don't even know about[br]Actors or CSB,

0:14:19.350,0:14:20.470
I'll never be exposed to that line of thought,

0:14:20.470,0:14:24.730
so that code is basically to learn a language,

0:14:24.730,0:14:27.700
not to just switch wholesale to that language,

0:14:27.700,0:14:34.390
but to be able to appreciate new ways of looking[br]at solving problems.

0:14:34.390,0:14:37.350
Y.K.: So I think that's a great point, and[br]when I,

0:14:37.350,0:14:39.899
kind of, I missed mentioning this, see,

0:14:39.899,0:14:42.160
when I was a program language geek,

0:14:42.160,0:14:46.160
I think the one great important inspiration[br]for me was SICP,

0:14:46.160,0:14:49.180
right, structural interpretation of computer[br]programs.

0:14:49.180,0:14:52.800
And that's something which, again, goes back[br]to what is,

0:14:52.800,0:14:55.640
what are the fundamental abstractions again,

0:14:55.640,0:14:58.310
you can reach out to solve problems of different[br]natures, right.

0:14:58.310,0:15:01.279
And that was the crux of it, you can use data[br]as abstraction,

0:15:01.279,0:15:02.120
procedures are abstraction,

0:15:02.120,0:15:05.740
stream processing and actually creating languages[br]of your own.

0:15:05.740,0:15:08.790
So the point is that there are far more paradigms,[br]right,

0:15:08.790,0:15:11.320
and I think getting a grasp of those paradigms[br]is very critical,

0:15:11.320,0:15:13.140
but for that you don't necessarily need to[br]go

0:15:13.140,0:15:16.019
every new languages around for you to see[br]what

0:15:16.019,0:15:18.579
ideas are implemented well in which language,

0:15:18.579,0:15:19.269
what can you adopt.

0:15:19.269,0:15:21.269
Take for example, after reading SICP,

0:15:21.269,0:15:24.220
I think my Java programming became so much[br]better,

0:15:24.220,0:15:28.649
I have said using more anonymous functions[br]or classes,

0:15:28.649,0:15:34.870
yeah, that's ugly but, so yeah. So I totally[br]agree with that.

0:15:34.870,0:15:39.000
H.K. So we, you talked about like,

0:15:39.000,0:15:42.850
how many of you heard of like something like,

0:15:42.850,0:15:45.290
or used a after patch in full or any sort[br]of concurrent programming,

0:15:45.290,0:15:46.810
can we have a show of hands?

0:15:46.810,0:15:50.300
OK, so, anybody wants to explain like yeah?

0:15:50.300,0:15:52.920
B.G.: There is nothing to explain.

0:15:52.920,0:15:56.600
Just go and read on Wikipedia.

0:15:56.600,0:15:59.399
C.F.: Or DFM.

0:15:59.399,0:16:03.139
B.G.: Or DFM, yeah.

0:16:03.139,0:16:06.440
H.K.: So. Which language you think like does

0:16:06.440,0:16:09.800
the whole active pattern problem programming[br]properly?

0:16:09.800,0:16:13.490
B.G.: So Actors are well implemented in Erlang,

0:16:13.490,0:16:18.930
and Echo, if you are using Scala, so take[br]a look at it.

0:16:18.930,0:16:20.600
And again this is not a single bullet,

0:16:20.600,0:16:22.050
again go back to your own basics,

0:16:22.050,0:16:23.240
Fred Brooks told you guys many years back,

0:16:23.240,0:16:23.980
go back to your basics. (00:16:28 - ??)

0:16:23.980,0:16:25.100
So Actors will not solve all kinds of problems

0:16:25.100,0:16:25.579
for you but you should be aware that there[br]is

0:16:25.579,0:16:25.620
another abstraction that I could probably[br]leverage

0:16:25.620,0:16:32.620
to solve whatever problem that I have and[br]can.

0:16:38.290,0:16:43.100
CSP is another thing that I briefly alluded[br]to.

0:16:43.100,0:16:46.550
That's something that is embodied in Go.

0:16:46.550,0:16:50.529
So Yogi just said that you don't need to learn[br]a programming language,

0:16:50.529,0:16:54.810
but look at systems where all these ideas[br]are well-implemented,

0:16:54.810,0:16:58.250
but I would also argue that not all ideas

0:16:58.250,0:17:01.740
can be implemented as well in all languages.

0:17:01.740,0:17:05.099
So you cannot, for example, Java does not,[br]I mean,

0:17:05.099,0:17:07.679
Java has something called Lambdas, but Java[br]hasn't,

0:17:07.679,0:17:09.369
does not have any of those functions.

0:17:09.369,0:17:10.949
So if I really wanted to understand the value

0:17:10.949,0:17:16.079
and virtues of any of those functions,

0:17:16.079,0:17:18.410
I can't learn it through Java.

0:17:18.410,0:17:20.240
The closest I'll get to is dependent injection,

0:17:20.240,0:17:23.069
but that is yet another level of abstraction,

0:17:23.069,0:17:28.799
which basically removes me part of the way[br]from the core goal, right.

0:17:28.799,0:17:34.240
So there are languages which are design to[br]level certain principles.

0:17:34.240,0:17:38.730
Go for example is built on top of CSP,

0:17:38.730,0:17:41.419
and the channels are a first class thing,

0:17:41.419,0:17:41.760
Erlang, also has something similar.

0:17:41.760,0:17:45.140
So maybe learning those languages will expose[br]you

0:17:45.140,0:17:47.919
to those ideas much better than something[br]other language.

0:17:47.919,0:17:48.860
H.K.: Chad, you want to-

0:17:48.860,0:17:50.040
C.F.: Yeah, I think from a,

0:17:50.040,0:17:52.770
from the perspective of learning the paradigm,

0:17:52.770,0:17:55.340
I think Yogi is lucky that he is smart enough

0:17:55.340,0:17:58.850
to read a book and then get all these things.

0:17:58.850,0:18:00.700
My experience is not the same.

0:18:00.700,0:18:01.799
I'm honest about that.

0:18:01.799,0:18:02.660
I don't think you're not being sincere,

0:18:02.660,0:18:07.360
I think some people, including me,

0:18:07.360,0:18:09.299
have to actually use the thing,

0:18:09.299,0:18:11.950
not just the language but the paradigm.

0:18:11.950,0:18:15.910
So like I can read about Actors in five minutes.

0:18:15.910,0:18:20.350
I totally understand it from a theoretical[br]perspective.

0:18:20.350,0:18:21.090
But it takes awhile,

0:18:21.090,0:18:22.490
and it takes actually trying

0:18:22.490,0:18:27.090
for me to really get where it makes sense,[br]you know.

0:18:27.090,0:18:28.299
B.G.: To appreciate it.

0:18:28.299,0:18:31.200
and also to appreciate the edges of it.

0:18:31.200,0:18:33.630
So I actually think like,

0:18:33.630,0:18:35.990
I've been trying to get out of Ruby

0:18:35.990,0:18:36.860
as I've been saying.

0:18:36.860,0:18:39.150
I mean the truth is I have learned,

0:18:39.150,0:18:40.820
I don't know how many programming languages

0:18:40.820,0:18:42.290
since I started doing Ruby,

0:18:42.290,0:18:44.130
but I have never stuck to one.

0:18:44.130,0:18:45.809
I have, but you know,

0:18:45.809,0:18:48.010
I have rarely stuck to one long enough to[br]where

0:18:48.010,0:18:50.780
I really, really thought like that,

0:18:50.780,0:18:53.160
and like the best case scenario for me

0:18:53.160,0:18:58.790
in picking up these other paradigms is to[br]like

0:18:58.790,0:19:03.570
get so into Go programming that then I go[br]back to Ruby,

0:19:03.570,0:19:07.290
and I go to do something, and I don't try[br]to implement channels,

0:19:07.290,0:19:10.890
I just say, damn it, channels aren't here,[br]I'm frustrated now.

0:19:10.890,0:19:13.940
And it, I see that this language isn't perfect

0:19:13.940,0:19:15.190
because no language is.

0:19:15.190,0:19:17.150
But you can't get to that point,

0:19:17.150,0:19:19.070
and that's like where the maturity comes from,

0:19:19.070,0:19:21.860
where you're not in love with any certain[br]thing,

0:19:21.860,0:19:24.080
and you're, you see the entire landscape,

0:19:24.080,0:19:26.299
and this is a part of why I can't answer the[br]question

0:19:26.299,0:19:28.070
of what my go-to language is right now.

0:19:28.070,0:19:30.870
Like I'm doing a lot of Scala because there

0:19:30.870,0:19:35.419
are certain things that I'm working on that[br]work really well with Actors.

0:19:35.419,0:19:39.130
Like I can conceptualize them with Actors[br]and that's what I'm gonna-

0:19:39.130,0:19:42.190
I'm gonna write it in Scala because we already[br]have the JVM,

0:19:42.190,0:19:44.549
so therefore it's easy to do Scala versus[br]Erlang.

0:19:44.549,0:19:48.200
H.K.: But still there's a problem here.

0:19:48.200,0:19:50.220
Like the way you approach programming language

0:19:50.220,0:19:53.090
for example like in Ruby world for example,

0:19:53.090,0:19:56.510
like Eric Hodel or [00"19"54] ??

0:19:56.510,0:19:59.080
these guys are maintaining tools that you[br]have written actually,

0:19:59.080,0:20:02.260
for many years back, and those tools all have,

0:20:02.260,0:20:04.770
like for example Ruby gems didn't have proper

0:20:04.770,0:20:08.630
test suite for awhile actually, and like the[br]building-

0:20:08.630,0:20:12.220
C.F.: That's because tests are a design smell.

0:20:12.220,0:20:13.179
That's why.

0:20:13.179,0:20:17.970
H.K.: My point is like building a tools like[br]of a language,

0:20:17.970,0:20:19.460
around a language takes time actually.

0:20:19.460,0:20:21.780
Do you think like for example like Eric Hodel

0:20:21.780,0:20:24.289
and these guys are probably working with this[br]thing

0:20:24.289,0:20:26.370
for like nine years or so,

0:20:26.370,0:20:28.000
and they're still doing it, right,

0:20:28.000,0:20:30.280
so how do you like, if, how do you fix that?

0:20:30.280,0:20:34.280
Like you need to stay long-term in a language

0:20:34.280,0:20:37.460
to really change it, right, or like am I wrong[br]here?

0:20:37.460,0:20:40.220
C.F.: You mean you need to stay in it to change[br]the language itself?

0:20:40.220,0:20:42.360
H.K.: To change the language or build like

0:20:42.360,0:20:46.690
the infrastructure or the libraries, gems[br]to support it.

0:20:46.690,0:20:48.169
C.F.: Yeah, somebody does.

0:20:48.169,0:20:50.530
It doesn't have to be me, right.

0:20:50.530,0:20:52.770
B.G.: Again, so let me add something to what[br]Chad said.

0:20:52.770,0:20:57.490
So Chad said that I don't want to remain a[br]Ruby programmer.

0:20:57.490,0:21:00.460
I think what he means is the Ruby mindset,[br]OK,

0:21:00.460,0:21:03.650
or any mindset thereof. It's not about writing,

0:21:03.650,0:21:05.010
just coding that language.

0:21:05.010,0:21:05.820
So you can still be a Ruby programmer for[br]twenty years,

0:21:05.820,0:21:10.370
but that doesn't mean you keep the same mindset

0:21:10.370,0:21:13.490
all the time, right. There are things which[br]are not even new,

0:21:13.490,0:21:15.100
but we are not discovering those things

0:21:15.100,0:21:17.010
because we are not looking beyond Ruby.

0:21:17.010,0:21:18.850
H.K.: Can anyone else, sorry -

0:21:18.850,0:21:21.980
can anyone else carry the mic

0:21:21.980,0:21:26.020
and give it to the audience actually because-[br]there's no mic

0:21:26.020,0:21:26.860
B.G.: It's not just about Ruby, per se, right,

0:21:26.860,0:21:27.610
it's about any- it's applicable to any language,

0:21:27.610,0:21:31.809
like JavaScript, or Scala, or even Java for[br]that matter.

0:21:31.809,0:21:36.230
V.S.: So this, this is kind of intrinsic to,

0:21:36.230,0:21:39.610
something intrinsic to all we actually select

0:21:39.610,0:21:42.940
a language or set of languages to develop[br]these tastes,

0:21:42.940,0:21:44.070
depending on the nature of the problem,

0:21:44.070,0:21:47.090
I guess you pick what is called like a language

0:21:47.090,0:21:50.260
to which other languages can actually circle[br]around

0:21:50.260,0:21:52.580
and support various smaller problems,

0:21:52.580,0:21:55.250
whereas this core language that you're picking[br]is solving

0:21:55.250,0:21:58.130
like majority of the nature of the problem.

0:21:58.130,0:21:59.520
For example, web application,

0:21:59.520,0:22:00.720
but you got some parallelism stuff

0:22:00.720,0:22:03.240
that you need to do or you got some

0:22:03.240,0:22:04.940
functional programming stuff you need to do[br]like Scala,

0:22:04.940,0:22:07.039
so you probably pick one language, well like,

0:22:07.039,0:22:10.360
Ruby, as to kind of like hold everything together,

0:22:10.360,0:22:12.020
but you do have these other languages in which

0:22:12.020,0:22:12.309
you actually solve problems differently.

0:22:12.309,0:22:18.510
So it's more of- but different problems in[br]some contexts,

0:22:18.510,0:22:19.880
Scala may be the code language,

0:22:19.880,0:22:21.500
and you may want to wrap it around Ruby

0:22:21.500,0:22:23.890
a little bit or maybe other things a little[br]bit as well,

0:22:23.890,0:22:26.309
so it's more of starting from the

0:22:26.309,0:22:28.440
architecture of the nature of the problem,

0:22:28.440,0:22:30.970
but being polyglots, you have this choice[br]now,

0:22:30.970,0:22:32.919
not to implement and struggle with one language

0:22:32.919,0:22:34.970
like you just talked about example, but I[br]wish

0:22:34.970,0:22:37.110
channels were there in one particular case.

0:22:37.110,0:22:39.780
But now you could pick, if you can become[br]a polyglot

0:22:39.780,0:22:42.400
and learn these other languages to a good[br]degree,

0:22:42.400,0:22:44.580
you could pick other languages to compliment[br]it

0:22:44.580,0:22:46.610
and solve those specific problems. So this[br]seems

0:22:46.610,0:22:49.130
to be an approach that's kind of intrinsically

0:22:49.130,0:22:50.169
developing right now.

0:22:50.169,0:22:55.470
QUERANT: I have a point very close to what[br]you're saying.

0:22:55.470,0:22:59.940
Like based on, like especially what you said[br]about languages, right.

0:22:59.940,0:23:04.280
Like a general message could be use the right[br]tool

0:23:04.280,0:23:07.360
for the right thing kind of a thing,

0:23:07.360,0:23:12.919
but the problem could be that not everyone[br]can pick up,

0:23:12.919,0:23:14.539
so when you go into a code based on,

0:23:14.539,0:23:16.549
let's say, five different languages are being[br]used

0:23:16.549,0:23:19.360
for the right kind of problems,

0:23:19.360,0:23:20.950
so they are doing the right thing,

0:23:20.950,0:23:22.440
but for someone to go into that code base

0:23:22.440,0:23:24.690
and pick it up would become very hard right,

0:23:24.690,0:23:26.990
because not everybody's turned in that way.

0:23:26.990,0:23:30.039
So that's like, so polyglot comes with a very[br]heavy cost

0:23:30.039,0:23:31.789
of being able to replace yourself.

0:23:31.789,0:23:34.130
At least that's been my experience,

0:23:34.130,0:23:35.549
so that's my first question,

0:23:35.549,0:23:40.190
and like adding onto that like it's very easy

0:23:40.190,0:23:43.530
like you said you know like to pick up a book,

0:23:43.530,0:23:44.960
read through it, go through some you know

0:23:44.960,0:23:47.110
tutorials or whatever it is but like Yogi

0:23:47.110,0:23:49.299
was saying how his team had a,

0:23:49.299,0:23:51.409
they needed about three to four months

0:23:51.409,0:23:53.630
to start writing idiomatic Ruby, right,

0:23:53.630,0:23:55.070
and that is a big deal,

0:23:55.070,0:23:56.539
because in those three to four months

0:23:56.539,0:23:59.950
it's critical that you keep churning out code,[br]right.

0:23:59.950,0:24:01.309
You'll kill yourself or you can't

0:24:01.309,0:24:04.390
come to a halt because now you're getting[br]this new language on board.

0:24:04.390,0:24:07.820
You guys had the luxury of having an existing[br]system,

0:24:07.820,0:24:09.690
which was, and you were replacing that system,

0:24:09.690,0:24:12.100
but that's not necessarily always the case.

0:24:12.100,0:24:17.330
You have to write, so- yeah, so

0:24:17.330,0:24:17.409
H.K.: [indecipherable] (00:24:14)

0:24:17.409,0:24:19.659
QUERANT: Yeah, so like my second point was[br]around, like,

0:24:19.659,0:24:22.809
that was the first question for polyglot recruiting

0:24:22.809,0:24:24.240
and things like that would become very hard,

0:24:24.240,0:24:25.929
how do you know that.

0:24:25.929,0:24:29.330
Second, it's easy to pick up a language on[br]a theoretical sense,

0:24:29.330,0:24:31.980
but to be able to start writing idiomatic[br]programs

0:24:31.980,0:24:35.870
while also developing production-quality code,

0:24:35.870,0:24:39.460
do you guys have any experience about how[br]you got that working?

0:24:39.460,0:24:42.650
H.K.: That was the second question here that

0:24:42.650,0:24:46.809
I was about to ask actually, which was like,

0:24:46.809,0:24:48.020
at least one part of, but like,

0:24:48.020,0:24:50.890
how does an organization adopt a new you know[br]like language?

0:24:50.890,0:24:51.570
For example in Flipkart, like,

0:24:51.570,0:24:54.490
or the company where all of us work,

0:24:54.490,0:24:56.600
like you know like there's a,

0:24:56.600,0:24:58.299
in January a programmer decides I'm going[br]to build

0:24:58.299,0:25:00.360
this program in Erlang or I'm going to build[br]this thing

0:25:00.360,0:25:02.770
in Go and there's nobody else Go,

0:25:02.770,0:25:04.250
nobody else doing Go,

0:25:04.250,0:25:06.270
so as like you guys,

0:25:06.270,0:25:08.909
a senior person in your respective companies,

0:25:08.909,0:25:12.090
so do you listen to that guy or -

0:25:12.090,0:25:15.650
our deployment system is attuned for like[br]JVM deployment

0:25:15.650,0:25:19.789
or Ruby deployment and whole package management[br]or whatever,

0:25:19.789,0:25:21.240
and don't write this.

0:25:21.240,0:25:23.789
So there is like an aspect of like adopting[br]a new technology,

0:25:23.789,0:25:28.380
hiring, you know like the skill, the idea[br]of entry,

0:25:28.380,0:25:35.380
like in code business which are like- so how[br]do you tackle that problem in general?

0:25:36.390,0:25:42.230
Y.K.: So it's a hard problem, right. So at[br]Flipkart,

0:25:42.230,0:25:44.640
we were already fairly polyglot,

0:25:44.640,0:25:49.190
for example we all, the website is in PHP,

0:25:49.190,0:25:50.970
the search engine is in Closure,

0:25:50.970,0:25:53.140
the UGC system is written in Scala,

0:25:53.140,0:25:54.880
Java is all over the place,

0:25:54.880,0:25:56.450
Ruby came into the supply chain,

0:25:56.450,0:25:58.640
node.js is there in the seller platform and[br]more.

0:25:58.640,0:26:00.280
So we were already there,

0:26:00.280,0:26:02.520
but we actually ran into a few problems there.

0:26:02.520,0:26:07.190
So when, I think the question of technology[br]selection

0:26:07.190,0:26:08.710
is actually quite critical.

0:26:08.710,0:26:10.780
Very often a lot of it is driven by,

0:26:10.780,0:26:14.809
is mostly blog-driven decision making,

0:26:14.809,0:26:20.640
and that is, that can be quite scary.

0:26:20.640,0:26:23.169
So we've started to put in some kind of process,

0:26:23.169,0:26:24.590
it's hard, it's not worked so far.

0:26:24.590,0:26:26.059
We've been trying for one year

0:26:26.059,0:26:27.179
and the process is like,

0:26:27.179,0:26:29.220
you know OK go up to somebody else in the[br]team

0:26:29.220,0:26:30.870
and just ask them, just bounce off your thoughts

0:26:30.870,0:26:33.539
first before you kind of take up a new system,

0:26:33.539,0:26:34.330
a new technology.

0:26:34.330,0:26:38.419
So we tried to formalize that, we failed miserably[br]at it.

0:26:38.419,0:26:41.490
But right now what we have set focus on is[br]interfaces.

0:26:41.490,0:26:46.370
So we've become fairly diligent about

0:26:46.370,0:26:48.690
making sure that the interface and contracts[br]are good,

0:26:48.690,0:26:50.570
building systems, and then the systems can[br]call independently,

0:26:50.570,0:26:51.600
whatever tech stack they use,

0:26:51.600,0:26:53.570
as long as the team is committed to it,

0:26:53.570,0:26:56.320
that's not a completely way-out language.

0:26:56.320,0:26:59.169
So we moved from being predominantly

0:26:59.169,0:27:02.549
thrift-oriented interfaces to HTTP,

0:27:02.549,0:27:02.789
and that's added a huge amount of value.

0:27:02.789,0:27:06.980
QUERANT: Can you say what thrift is? (00:27:06[br]- indecipherable)

0:27:06.980,0:27:10.770
Y.K.: Sure. So Thrift is a binding protocol

0:27:10.770,0:27:12.070
which came out of Facebook I think,

0:27:12.070,0:27:15.169
so it basically gives you both RPCM point

0:27:15.169,0:27:16.580
and a data utilization mechanism,

0:27:16.580,0:27:21.620
so it's basically like Corba,

0:27:21.620,0:27:23.240
but it's, so it basically gives you a fast,[br]uh-

0:27:23.240,0:27:25.350
C.F.: These people are too young for that[br]actually.

0:27:25.350,0:27:28.179
Y.K.: Oops. What is Corba? Yeah.

0:27:28.179,0:27:31.029
C.F.: Do not ask that question.

0:27:31.029,0:27:34.470
B.G.: That'll be a big panel discussion by[br]itself, right.

0:27:34.470,0:27:36.190
C.F.: You have to be at least twenty-one to[br]hear

0:27:36.190,0:27:38.950
about Corba and not everyone in this room[br]is twenty-one.

0:27:38.950,0:27:44.429
Y.K.: Protocol buffers. It's more like that,[br]OK anyway. So-

0:27:44.429,0:27:46.650
C.F.: I think connection is open too, right-

0:27:46.650,0:27:47.200
Y.K.: Sorry?

0:27:47.200,0:27:49.460
C.F.: You can keep a long-running PCP connection[br]with that.

0:27:49.460,0:27:54.070
Y.K.: With Thrift you can do it, yes I think[br]so. Yes.

0:27:54.070,0:27:57.100
C.F.: You can keep a long-running PCP connection[br]open too,

0:27:57.100,0:28:00.480
which makes performance better than HTTP in[br]some cases.

0:28:00.480,0:28:03.789
Y.K.: Right, but if you already moved to HTTP[br]1.1%

0:28:03.789,0:28:04.890
connections that's kind of taken care of.

0:28:04.890,0:28:07.559
So yeah most modern libraries have that. So-

0:28:07.559,0:28:09.900
H.K.: We are digressing I think-

0:28:09.900,0:28:11.850
Y.K.: Yeah, where were we?

0:28:11.850,0:28:13.440
C.F.: Let's keep digressing, let's go.

0:28:13.440,0:28:16.750
Y.K.: We were talking about the language and[br]like the context-

0:28:16.750,0:28:19.190
Y.K.: Right, so we become pretty delusioned[br]about contacts,

0:28:19.190,0:28:23.590
so HTTP and the, and actually having sensible[br]rest end points

0:28:23.590,0:28:26.240
and resources has become kind of defacto,

0:28:26.240,0:28:27.970
and that's actually helped a lot.

0:28:27.970,0:28:29.940
So systems within Flipkart are extremely open,

0:28:29.940,0:28:32.970
you can actually query them pretty easily[br]to extract data,

0:28:32.970,0:28:37.240
not push data to it, but yeah, so I think[br]that works.

0:28:37.240,0:28:41.409
And then each team can independently take[br]decisions

0:28:41.409,0:28:42.340
with some guidelines at hand,

0:28:42.340,0:28:44.720
so we kind of brought people towards

0:28:44.720,0:28:47.950
a few languages and technology stacks that[br]have worked,

0:28:47.950,0:28:49.840
but not insist on it, so if somebody goes[br]out and says you know,

0:28:49.840,0:28:52.200
Elixir is also meant for these reasons,

0:28:52.200,0:28:54.029
we'll at least ask them that OK,

0:28:54.029,0:28:56.860
does it check a box on tooling,

0:28:56.860,0:28:59.090
on some mode of profiling or monitoring,

0:28:59.090,0:29:01.220
and basically a small check list of sorts.

0:29:01.220,0:29:03.299
We have not implemented this yet.

0:29:03.299,0:29:04.320
It's probably going to-

0:29:04.320,0:29:06.900
shit's going to hit the fan when we kind of[br]suggest it,

0:29:06.900,0:29:08.890
but yeah that's the idea.

0:29:08.890,0:29:13.029
C.F.: Our solution is a little more messy,

0:29:13.029,0:29:18.440
I guess, as you would probably expect from[br]me.

0:29:18.440,0:29:21.039
But like you said, not too way-out language,

0:29:21.039,0:29:24.159
I like the way-out languages, and I would[br]like everyone

0:29:24.159,0:29:27.520
to be able to do any weird language they want,

0:29:27.520,0:29:30.510
cause I hate that being a thing that people[br]talk about

0:29:30.510,0:29:33.150
and are frustrated about at work.

0:29:33.150,0:29:34.590
Such a stupid thing to worry about.

0:29:34.590,0:29:37.840
So as I talked about in my talk this morning,

0:29:37.840,0:29:41.059
I will tell developers, any language you want,[br]fine,

0:29:41.059,0:29:43.880
go ahead, but you have to write very little[br]code,

0:29:43.880,0:29:46.350
it has to be a very small well-defined thing.

0:29:46.350,0:29:49.210
We are also working very hard on the interface[br]definitions,

0:29:49.210,0:29:52.330
and that's why I was talking about that JSON[br]Schema validation stuff,

0:29:52.330,0:29:56.029
to add one more layer of monitoring to it.

0:29:56.029,0:30:01.529
But most importantly, I want to hire people[br]that I trust,

0:30:01.529,0:30:04.799
and I want to show them that I trust them.

0:30:04.799,0:30:07.409
So if someone really, really wants to do something[br]in Elixir,

0:30:07.409,0:30:11.380
and I have one guy who really, really wants[br]to do something in Elixir,

0:30:11.380,0:30:13.990
he actually proposed it for one project and[br]I said fine,

0:30:13.990,0:30:16.460
whatever. Then we realized we needed to do[br]a lot of stuff

0:30:16.460,0:30:20.470
that talked to Amazon SQS, and there was no[br]good Erlang library

0:30:20.470,0:30:22.100
or Elixir library we could find,

0:30:22.100,0:30:24.630
so we did it in Scala instead, because it[br]was easier.

0:30:24.630,0:30:27.659
But he made the choice, not me, and so,

0:30:27.659,0:30:32.049
like, we have one thing in Lua even, in engine[br]X.

0:30:32.049,0:30:37.500
I would love to have like Assembly and Objective[br]C on the server,

0:30:37.500,0:30:39.789
you know any, maybe, I don't know, Visual[br]Basic,

0:30:39.789,0:30:43.000
does that still exist? We could do that too.

0:30:43.000,0:30:43.600
Off-screen: It totally does.

0:30:43.600,0:30:44.630
C.F.: Yeah, it does. All right, awesome.

0:30:44.630,0:30:46.070
Server-side Visual Basic.

0:30:46.070,0:30:52.169
B.G.: So I guess it's more of a cultural problem,

0:30:52.169,0:30:54.659
it's not really a technical problem.

0:30:54.659,0:30:58.169
And I think it can be solved by setting the[br]right expectations

0:30:58.169,0:31:03.900
and what Chad said, totally agree. Trust your[br]team members.

0:31:03.900,0:31:08.169
Give them the opportunity to try out new tools,[br]and you know, prove them.

0:31:08.169,0:31:11.929
So what we do is that, when a new programming[br]language

0:31:11.929,0:31:14.480
comes out, any way as such we are using a[br]cool

0:31:14.480,0:31:19.190
and really hip programming. But if something[br]cooler comes out,

0:31:19.190,0:31:22.610
like, I don't know, something might come out[br]tomorrow.

0:31:22.610,0:31:28.730
But we always have encouraged people to try[br]out new languages

0:31:28.730,0:31:32.779
and maybe build a internal project and show[br]it to us

0:31:32.779,0:31:36.580
and we take a collective decision in such[br]cases.

0:31:36.580,0:31:39.039
But, yeah. So I think it seems more like a[br]cultural situation,

0:31:39.039,0:31:40.640
and as far as hiring is concerned, I think[br]it's better off,

0:31:40.640,0:31:45.169
better if you hire programmers, instead of[br]Ruby programmers

0:31:45.169,0:31:48.190
or Java programmers, or PHP programmers.

0:31:48.190,0:31:50.600
Get people who can write code and who can[br]learn new things,

0:31:50.600,0:31:54.679
because even in the Ruby world, you are doing[br]new things every day.

0:31:54.679,0:32:01.270
If you cannot learn new tools or techniques[br]then you are stuck.

0:32:01.270,0:32:01.570
QUERANT: (indecipherable - 00:31:57)

0:32:01.570,0:32:03.539
B.G.: A code base, you are talking about a[br]code base.

0:32:03.539,0:32:04.190
QUERANT: (indecipherable - 00:32:04)

0:32:04.190,0:32:07.350
B.G.: So idioms are formed over time, right,

0:32:07.350,0:32:09.720
and they are also learned over time.

0:32:09.720,0:32:12.149
So if you are working on a sufficiently complicated[br]code base,

0:32:12.149,0:32:14.990
any way will take you some time to grok it,

0:32:14.990,0:32:16.120
if there's and existing code base.

0:32:16.120,0:32:17.559
Now if you were trying to learn something

0:32:17.559,0:32:19.970
and to build something fresh.

0:32:19.970,0:32:21.760
It will take you some time, there will be[br]some iterative-

0:32:21.760,0:32:24.549
some iterations, right. That, I think is perfectly[br]normal.

0:32:24.549,0:32:27.990
C.F.: Yeah, I actually meant to answer the[br]idiomatic thing.

0:32:27.990,0:32:30.880
If it works and everyone can understand it,

0:32:30.880,0:32:32.140
I don't really care.

0:32:32.140,0:32:34.080
Like let it look like Java code written

0:32:34.080,0:32:36.850
with Ruby syntax. Doesn't matter if it performs

0:32:36.850,0:32:39.059
and the person enjoyed doing it and it,

0:32:39.059,0:32:42.049
you know, didn't take them forever,

0:32:42.049,0:32:44.159
and it's not completely confusing.

0:32:44.159,0:32:47.419
But, and my answer to that is keep it really[br]small.

0:32:47.419,0:32:50.539
If it does, it doesn't matter if it's idiomatic[br]at all.

0:32:50.539,0:32:51.450
H.K.: But there's like-

0:32:51.450,0:32:54.990
B.G.: Another thing, just one thing that I'll[br]add is that,

0:32:54.990,0:32:56.460
how do you really define idiomatic code, OK?

0:32:56.460,0:33:00.399
A code in which you are able to leverage the[br]features

0:33:00.399,0:33:03.970
of a programming language the best is idiomatic[br]code, right.

0:33:03.970,0:33:05.429
So if you're championing a programming language

0:33:05.429,0:33:08.679
you are trying to introduce the new programming[br]language to your company,

0:33:08.679,0:33:11.640
and of course you'd like to exploit all its[br]features, right.

0:33:11.640,0:33:15.740
Unless it is handed down to you by your boss,[br]right.

0:33:15.740,0:33:18.770
So if someone is championing a new programming[br]language,

0:33:18.770,0:33:23.679
it's his prerogative to you know to learn[br]what the idioms are,

0:33:23.679,0:33:25.470
maybe figure them out over time.

0:33:25.470,0:33:28.460
H.K. This not working?

0:33:28.460,0:33:35.460
B.G.: Yeah that doesn't seem to work.

0:33:36.080,0:33:38.380
V.S.: So it's gonna be a slow process, you[br]know,

0:33:38.380,0:33:40.549
obviously we just talked about lots of languages,

0:33:40.549,0:33:43.080
and the key thing is are we doing in house,

0:33:43.080,0:33:44.590
we have control of the deployment environment,

0:33:44.590,0:33:46.440
versus, we are gonna consult.

0:33:46.440,0:33:49.059
So for example, Flipkart, or, in several cases,

0:33:49.059,0:33:52.020
that there's a lot, you're in control of the[br]whole thing,

0:33:52.020,0:33:53.690
that, and you basically decide, or,

0:33:53.690,0:33:56.059
you live with the consequences of the whole[br]thing, right.

0:33:56.059,0:33:58.520
Then when you're dealing with the customer-based[br]solution,

0:33:58.520,0:34:01.270
obviously there's a lot more constraints as[br]to,

0:34:01.270,0:34:02.860
you know, he would look for somethings that[br]he can

0:34:02.860,0:34:04.659
add more people to work with as opposed to[br]just you,

0:34:04.659,0:34:05.820
and what if you can go away,

0:34:05.820,0:34:07.600
and in-house holds the same problem.

0:34:07.600,0:34:11.359
So probably to start with just learn one more[br]language.

0:34:11.359,0:34:13.250
Just learn one more language and start using[br]it,

0:34:13.250,0:34:14.379
and it's gonna take some time, like you said,

0:34:14.379,0:34:15.829
it's just cultural thing, you know.

0:34:15.829,0:34:18.498
Particularly in India the context is not just,

0:34:18.498,0:34:21.978
you know, just start with one more language,

0:34:21.978,0:34:23.199
try to use it in deployment,

0:34:23.199,0:34:25.559
so it doesn't look like you're grabbing this[br]opportunity

0:34:25.559,0:34:28.779
to as many language as possible into solution[br]you build,

0:34:28.779,0:34:31.089
just for the sake of learning new things.

0:34:31.089,0:34:33.809
But just do one more language, carefully.

0:34:33.809,0:34:34.958
But in order for you to do that

0:34:34.958,0:34:37.549
you probably will have to casually learn five-six[br]languages.

0:34:37.549,0:34:38.949
And you may want to pick that language

0:34:38.949,0:34:40.869
that you want and it's gonna be a slow process.

0:34:40.869,0:34:41.259
You're not gonna be able to finally deliver[br]all this,

0:34:41.259,0:34:46.699
and then you know, introduce a new language[br]just like that next day.

0:34:46.699,0:34:48.708
C.F.: Yeah, when I started learning Ruby,

0:34:48.708,0:34:52.049
I started using it in 2000 network,

0:34:52.049,0:34:53.829
and it was to generate Java code,

0:34:53.829,0:34:55.369
because no one would let me deploy Ruby.

0:34:55.369,0:34:57.018
So I just wrote Java generators

0:34:57.018,0:34:58.859
and I wrote everything like as a DSL in Ruby.

0:34:58.859,0:35:00.599
V.S.: Yeah absolutely.

0:35:00.599,0:35:02.709
My first experience with Ruby was not really[br]mainstream.

0:35:02.709,0:35:04.829
We were just doing, it was called load disk[br]conductors.

0:35:04.829,0:35:07.289
It was an OpenSource thing that we were just[br]doing.

0:35:07.289,0:35:09.209
So what we wanted is we wanted to drive these[br]command lines,

0:35:09.209,0:35:11.019
and Ruby was a language to do that.

0:35:11.019,0:35:12.839
So there are other opportunities for you to[br]use

0:35:12.839,0:35:15.089
new languages may not be in your main code[br]base,

0:35:15.089,0:35:17.229
all the supporting tool systems as well.

0:35:17.229,0:35:18.039
So there's a lot of opportunities,

0:35:18.039,0:35:20.229
so you may not look at it as,

0:35:20.229,0:35:25.349
can I change my main language, or how soon[br]can I do it?

0:35:25.349,0:35:26.140
K.H.: So-

0:35:26.140,0:35:28.469
Y.K.: So, one of the, I don't know,

0:35:28.469,0:35:30.709
this is a thought, this has been kind of crossing[br]my mind repeatedly,

0:35:30.709,0:35:32.959
and kind of worrying me, also.

0:35:32.959,0:35:38.410
So I used to be kind of involved in the language[br]choice wars a lot,

0:35:38.410,0:35:44.959
and always on the now try out something new[br]side.

0:35:44.959,0:35:46.430
And I've kind of discovered a completely

0:35:46.430,0:35:47.660
different way of working at Flipkart,

0:35:47.660,0:35:50.259
and some of the other people who've been there.

0:35:50.259,0:35:52.589
They kind of shook me out of,

0:35:52.589,0:35:56.440
maybe my Thoughtworks influenced it in a certain[br]way.

0:35:56.440,0:36:00.170
So, and there's a very key point when that[br]happened.

0:36:00.170,0:36:03.190
So I think the difference was this, right.

0:36:03.190,0:36:05.369
The take-away was that,

0:36:05.369,0:36:06.920
if I'm arguing about a programming language,

0:36:06.920,0:36:11.920
I probably don't understand the problem domain[br]well enough, right.

0:36:11.920,0:36:15.779
And I've seen cases where systems have been[br]built

0:36:15.779,0:36:19.329
which go fundamentally towards the problem[br]being solved as really about,

0:36:19.329,0:36:20.309
and modeled the code abstraction so beautifully,

0:36:20.309,0:36:24.099
that then, or it identified the co-op section[br]so beautifully

0:36:24.099,0:36:28.920
that it doesn't matter which language you[br]implement it in,

0:36:28.920,0:36:30.170
because that problem is solved.

0:36:30.170,0:36:33.009
And even before we started implementation[br]that is beautiful.

0:36:33.009,0:36:34.099
I think with this giant perspective,

0:36:34.099,0:36:36.329
I think somewhere that has got lost.

0:36:36.329,0:36:38.729
We try to kind of get into implementation[br]much sooner.

0:36:38.729,0:36:41.979
So if I could actually go back and say what's[br]the most,

0:36:41.979,0:36:43.150
my favorite programming language,

0:36:43.150,0:36:45.309
I think I would say domain-driven design actually.

0:36:45.309,0:36:47.859
I would actually just recommend people to...

0:36:47.859,0:36:50.180
oh and actually do that on my team also, too,

0:36:50.180,0:36:53.529
actually read that book and try and apply[br]it.

0:36:53.529,0:36:57.039
Because I think a huge set of wins are possible[br]from that,

0:36:57.039,0:36:59.920
without even going down to the programming[br]language level.

0:36:59.920,0:37:03.910
C.F.: Yeah, the programming language is a[br]tactical choice,

0:37:03.910,0:37:06.799
in most cases, right, but the domain,

0:37:06.799,0:37:09.150
it's like what you were saying about performance[br]earlier.

0:37:09.150,0:37:12.829
You could use Java or you could use JRuby,[br]doesn't really matter,

0:37:12.829,0:37:15.099
because the database is gonna be slow, right.

0:37:15.099,0:37:18.390
When it comes to application design and architecture,

0:37:18.390,0:37:21.719
it's really a hierarchy, so domain-driven[br]design is

0:37:21.719,0:37:23.729
at a level higher than the languages.

0:37:23.729,0:37:27.269
I would still say that the languages make[br]you think differently,

0:37:27.269,0:37:30.559
and some languages suit different domains[br]better,

0:37:30.559,0:37:33.380
and having really open-mindedly going,

0:37:33.380,0:37:36.989
gone back to Java recently for various reasons,

0:37:36.989,0:37:40.890
I can tell you that it's terrible to use,[br]it really is.

0:37:40.890,0:37:42.729
It wastes my time compared to Ruby

0:37:42.729,0:37:45.519
and compared to Scala and compared to more[br]modern languages.

0:37:45.519,0:37:47.039
And it's not a knock against Java -

0:37:47.039,0:37:49.549
Java's older and doesn't have those benefits.

0:37:49.549,0:37:52.859
So I think tactically, it's a bit of an exaggeration

0:37:52.859,0:37:55.450
to say that the language doesn't matter, but[br]I get your point.

0:37:55.450,0:37:57.759
Y.K.: Sure. So just as a counterpoint to that.

0:37:57.759,0:38:00.150
Actually having gone from Ruby back to Java,

0:38:00.150,0:38:03.450
there's a few very low-latency systems that[br]we had to

0:38:03.450,0:38:07.529
build out recently and those are built with[br]some of the newer Java stacks,

0:38:07.529,0:38:12.609
like say dropwizard which has got Hibernate[br]integrated into it,

0:38:12.609,0:38:16.880
and Netti and, so it's basically a complete[br]stack

0:38:16.880,0:38:18.440
and actual systems and the designs that came[br]out of it

0:38:18.440,0:38:18.650
were actually pretty good,

0:38:18.650,0:38:22.019
and I was surprised and actually happy

0:38:22.019,0:38:23.269
to go back and look at Java.

0:38:23.269,0:38:27.140
And I actually enjoy looking forward to Java[br]ahead.

0:38:27.140,0:38:29.859
More than Scala in a sense.

0:38:29.859,0:38:31.920
H.K.: That's good, because-

0:38:31.920,0:38:37.319
So the Java aid that you mentioned and then[br]Scala.

0:38:37.319,0:38:38.499
So there's a couple of things

0:38:38.499,0:38:43.599
like if you talked about this Java like and[br]Scala like,

0:38:43.599,0:38:44.690
why would you choose like, for example, today,

0:38:44.690,0:38:46.569
like Java it is not released.

0:38:46.569,0:38:52.229
But what would issues like, is there any reason[br]to choose

0:38:52.229,0:38:55.069
like Scala over Java now actually?

0:38:55.069,0:38:57.829
Because now for example, (00:38:57 - ??)

0:38:57.829,0:39:00.160
is a good system, but it is usable from both[br]the languages,

0:39:00.160,0:39:04.239
right, so is there any reason to pick- Chad?

0:39:04.239,0:39:09.680
C.F.: Yes. So the question is,

0:39:09.680,0:39:11.529
is there any reason to pick Java over Scala,

0:39:11.529,0:39:13.819
or Scala over Java. Does one win?

0:39:13.819,0:39:19.430
H.K.: No, no, no, no. Just Java, like Scala[br]over Java, like-

0:39:19.430,0:39:21.829
C.F.: Is Scal- or, should you actually,

0:39:21.829,0:39:23.719
because of Java aid, does Scala need-

0:39:23.719,0:39:25.279
H.K.: Or Java seven, yeah.

0:39:25.279,0:39:29.319
C.F.: Java seven, then yes. Like.

0:39:29.319,0:39:35.450
For me I see Scala as like totally over-engineered,

0:39:35.450,0:39:38.509
in the same way that Yogi almost said, but[br]like,

0:39:38.509,0:39:42.709
too many features. But, and I'm even writing[br]a book about it,

0:39:42.709,0:39:45.709
but I kind of hate it.

0:39:45.709,0:39:49.140
That said, you can program Scala like Java

0:39:49.140,0:39:52.109
with less annoying syntax. You can do that,

0:39:52.109,0:39:54.170
you can make it be like a Java program,

0:39:54.170,0:39:56.849
and if you do, I would argue very strongly,

0:39:56.849,0:39:58.170
and maybe, and this is subjective

0:39:58.170,0:40:00.690
and maybe even kind of fashion-oriented,

0:40:00.690,0:40:03.390
I would argue that the Scala code is better[br]to look at

0:40:03.390,0:40:05.809
and easier to write than the Java code.

0:40:05.809,0:40:09.430
There's less typing, and I mean that in two[br]sense.

0:40:09.430,0:40:10.410
Less typing on the keyboard

0:40:10.410,0:40:15.069
and less having to explicitly type because[br]of type inference.

0:40:15.069,0:40:18.599
I'm sure, and like with Java seven there are[br]Lambdas,

0:40:18.599,0:40:20.509
with Java 8 I'm sure it's gonna be some sort[br]of

0:40:20.509,0:40:23.539
anemic thing that doesn't quite work the way[br]we want it to.

0:40:23.539,0:40:25.299
It's perfect in Scala.

0:40:25.299,0:40:27.140
There's a lot of great stuff about Scala,

0:40:27.140,0:40:31.519
as a next evolution of Java.

0:40:31.519,0:40:34.469
But, you can also, like Ruby,

0:40:34.469,0:40:37.630
with meta-programming and eval and all the[br]crazy stuff you can do,

0:40:37.630,0:40:44.630
you can completely shoot yourself in the foot[br]with it, too.

0:40:46.599,0:40:53.599
QUERANT: So, when we compare these languages,

0:40:55.380,0:40:56.749
like Java and Ruby and all that,

0:40:56.749,0:41:00.440
the thing that we kind of focus on is the[br]amount of,

0:41:00.440,0:41:04.999
volume of code. Volume of code doesn't lead[br]to the ease of understanding.

0:41:04.999,0:41:07.660
One of the thing that Java really does well

0:41:07.660,0:41:11.519
is things are so simple that there's no,

0:41:11.519,0:41:13.739
there's implicit stuff happening behind

0:41:13.739,0:41:17.199
the scenes and all that. And very, very well-factored[br]Java code

0:41:17.199,0:41:18.880
is not so ugly to look at.

0:41:18.880,0:41:20.609
We have written all small methods

0:41:20.609,0:41:22.589
and composed stuff out of it.

0:41:22.589,0:41:25.479
It's not so ugly to write or ugly to look[br]at it. So-

0:41:25.479,0:41:26.589
C.F.: I would like to answer that

0:41:26.589,0:41:28.569
even if you're not asking me,

0:41:28.569,0:41:31.400
cause I could imagine myself saying that

0:41:31.400,0:41:33.029
if I were in the audience.

0:41:33.029,0:41:36.499
But right now I strongly disagree with you.

0:41:36.499,0:41:41.890
I think Java is simple as a language, yes,

0:41:41.890,0:41:46.880
but what it leads to is, because of its lack[br]of flexibility,

0:41:46.880,0:41:49.150
it's not the volume of code that I hate -

0:41:49.150,0:41:51.279
I mean sometimes it is, sometimes it's literally[br]because

0:41:51.279,0:41:53.599
I have to type date date equals new date.

0:41:53.599,0:41:56.219
I don't need that.

0:41:56.219,0:41:59.119
But it's also the ability to be expressive,

0:41:59.119,0:42:02.259
and to me that's where Java strongly lacks.

0:42:02.259,0:42:05.999
It's pretty good as a system language, like,

0:42:05.999,0:42:08.339
at the point where you decide you need to[br]make that distinction,

0:42:08.339,0:42:10.779
but maybe as things get faster you don't need[br]to anymore.

0:42:10.779,0:42:15.479
But I believe that the abstractions that people[br]end up creating for Java,

0:42:15.479,0:42:19.069
at least idiomatic Java, like in the Java[br]world,

0:42:19.069,0:42:21.549
idiomatic is a bad sign, I would say,

0:42:21.549,0:42:24.469
because it leads to this kind of pattern soup[br]thing.

0:42:24.469,0:42:26.809
And it's true that you can reason about it,

0:42:26.809,0:42:29.170
because it's statically typed, and there are

0:42:29.170,0:42:31.499
less opportunities for meta-programming,

0:42:31.499,0:42:34.140
but it's a slow process in my experience of[br]reasoning about it,

0:42:34.140,0:42:37.180
because you get so far away from the domain,

0:42:37.180,0:42:40.119
creating all these factories and interfaces[br]and crap,

0:42:40.119,0:42:42.769
just so that you can make it testable and[br]plugable,

0:42:42.769,0:42:47.959
that it, the actual logic and the core of[br]the business gets lost.

0:42:47.959,0:42:52.459
Do you have a- anyone have a point to make[br]on that?

0:42:52.459,0:42:55.589
B.G.: So yeah, I totally agree with Chad here.

0:42:55.589,0:42:57.949
Java the language is designed to be very simple,

0:42:57.949,0:42:59.839
but at the same time it's also very rigid.

0:42:59.839,0:43:03.690
So imagine explaining philosophy to a kid,[br]right.

0:43:03.690,0:43:07.089
The kid probably has a vocabulary of maybe[br]hundred words.

0:43:07.089,0:43:11.839
How do you do that? You cannot discuss the[br]existence of God,

0:43:11.839,0:43:14.630
you know, or maybe the nature of knowledge,

0:43:14.630,0:43:18.299
in front of a kid, because the kid doesn't[br]have the vocabulary

0:43:18.299,0:43:21.359
that you need to communicate with that child,[br]right.

0:43:21.359,0:43:23.549
So what you end up doing is over-simplification.

0:43:23.549,0:43:26.579
So by the time you simplify the concepts to

0:43:26.579,0:43:29.380
the primitives that the child can understand,

0:43:29.380,0:43:33.109
you're far away from Aristotle and Plato,[br]you know.

0:43:33.109,0:43:36.809
So that's the example that I give you.

0:43:36.809,0:43:39.289
QUERANT: I have a question.

0:43:39.289,0:43:41.769
At what point do you feel comfortable or something

0:43:41.769,0:43:46.400
like a threshold level for new languages to[br]be used in production,

0:43:46.400,0:43:48.160
you know, like, there are some languages which[br]are

0:43:48.160,0:43:49.969
coming up now but you still you know

0:43:49.969,0:43:51.430
that it's not something that you use.

0:43:51.430,0:43:53.789
As for me I would probably look at an example,

0:43:53.789,0:43:55.749
if I would say OK, there are quite a few systems,

0:43:55.749,0:43:58.449
big huge systems based on Ruby, I could recommend

0:43:58.449,0:44:01.239
it to someone people who are comfortable say[br]if

0:44:01.239,0:44:04.059
they say it is OK if I use Ruby yeah say because

0:44:04.059,0:44:06.009
there are people who use it. But at production[br]level

0:44:06.009,0:44:07.769
when that new language is- at what point do[br]you feel

0:44:07.769,0:44:08.799
comfortable to say that, OK, this is viable[br]to use

0:44:08.799,0:44:08.999
in production?

0:44:08.999,0:44:09.940
B.G.: Fantastic question. I would say that[br]this is a

0:44:09.940,0:44:10.279
case that you need to develop over time, and[br]I think

0:44:10.279,0:44:10.799
it comes with experience. The more you learn[br]of different

0:44:10.799,0:44:16.849
programming languages, the better you get[br]at evaluating them,

0:44:16.849,0:44:23.849
but having said that, community support does[br]matter,

0:44:25.299,0:44:27.650
based on-

0:44:27.650,0:44:32.349
(00:44:36 - dead audio - 00:44:37)

0:44:32.349,0:44:39.349
OK, you can have a language which can have[br]a

0:44:40.259,0:44:42.279
huge community around it.

0:44:42.279,0:44:44.180
That does not necessarily equate to the language[br]being awesome, OK.

0:44:44.180,0:44:46.059
Documentation is also another thing, ?? (00:44:45)

0:44:46.059,0:44:47.319
is also another thing.

0:44:47.319,0:44:52.640
But again I would say that one of the ways[br]is to really see,

0:44:52.640,0:44:55.519
what is the USB of the language, what kind[br]of problem

0:44:55.519,0:44:58.880
is the language helping you solve, OK. If[br]you see that,

0:44:58.880,0:45:02.199
it's like you already know Python, and there[br]is Ruby,

0:45:02.199,0:45:04.039
not really very different, honestly.

0:45:04.039,0:45:08.380
So, but if you see Go, again, very different,

0:45:08.380,0:45:12.479
a lot of interesting concepts, and so you[br]might

0:45:12.479,0:45:16.799
find problems where that language might fit[br]in just perfectly, right.

0:45:16.799,0:45:21.739
So it's OK to maybe wait for a production[br]by a larger community,

0:45:21.739,0:45:25.209
but sometimes you have to be that champion[br]yourself, right.

0:45:25.209,0:45:28.319
Someone started using the language first,[br]when Ruby came out, right.

0:45:28.319,0:45:30.420
(00:45:27) was the guy, probably.

0:45:30.420,0:45:32.119
That's why he's worshiped today.

0:45:32.119,0:45:35.640
So why not be the (name) yourself.

0:45:35.640,0:45:38.640
QUERANT: (indecipherable - 00:45:37)

0:45:38.640,0:45:43.949
Y.K.: Yup. Yeah, so I think it's,

0:45:43.949,0:45:47.180
there are quite a few kind of milestones for[br]a language

0:45:47.180,0:45:49.190
to go through, but I think the most critical,

0:45:49.190,0:45:51.219
so again, it depends on the kind of client

0:45:51.219,0:45:52.509
that you're kind of suggesting this to, right,

0:45:52.509,0:45:54.239
like if it's a small start up then sure,

0:45:54.239,0:45:55.349
you have a lot more flexibility.

0:45:55.349,0:45:56.999
If it's a larger system, it has to scale,

0:45:56.999,0:45:58.900
you got different constraints.

0:45:58.900,0:46:02.449
But I think by and large the existence

0:46:02.449,0:46:08.239
of a very low latency production profiler

0:46:08.239,0:46:12.039
or on-time run system is probably that milestone.

0:46:12.039,0:46:14.519
The moment that it is in place,

0:46:14.519,0:46:17.359
a profiler which can actually run in production,

0:46:17.359,0:46:19.729
for that language, I think that marks a very[br]critical

0:46:19.729,0:46:22.009
milestone when the language starts evolving[br]at a very

0:46:22.009,0:46:25.319
different pace. Because you start kind of[br]finding issues

0:46:25.319,0:46:27.789
which you never had been able to find before,[br]right.

0:46:27.789,0:46:30.739
So for example, with both tools, we've been[br]able to do

0:46:30.739,0:46:32.819
amazing things in production with Ruby, which[br]was just

0:46:32.819,0:46:35.249
not possible before we knew, even the commercial[br]ordinative,

0:46:35.249,0:46:37.509
like ?? (00:46:35) for that matter, right,[br]so either a

0:46:37.509,0:46:40.099
commercial or opensource production profiling[br]tool I

0:46:40.099,0:46:41.219
think is a pretty significant milestone.

0:46:41.219,0:46:43.819
QUERANT: I have a couple of questions here.

0:46:43.819,0:46:45.890
B.G.: Right, Yogi.

0:46:45.890,0:46:51.430
Y.K.: I don't know. Haven't you seen production?

0:46:51.430,0:46:56.309
B.G.: The production level compiler which[br]you can plug into a running system?

0:46:56.309,0:46:59.039
Y.K.: So there are-

0:46:59.039,0:47:03.339
(00:46:58 - dead audio - 00:47:29)

0:47:03.339,0:47:07.940
B.G.: Yeah, but those are Valgrind but, which[br]is not probably-

0:47:07.940,0:47:08.920
Y.K.: Sure.

0:47:08.920,0:47:12.499
B.G.: I think, what I will say is that,

0:47:12.499,0:47:16.459
Yogi is talking about the presence of a profiler[br]being very important.

0:47:16.459,0:47:18.900
I think again it depends on the domain that[br]you are in.

0:47:18.900,0:47:21.849
What kind of company you work for, what your[br]challenges are.

0:47:21.849,0:47:24.769
It could just be documentation for you. Right[br]or it could be

0:47:24.769,0:47:29.829
just the existence of a all-out library for[br]you, right.

0:47:29.829,0:47:34.579
So I think it depends. The answer, real answer[br]is it really depends.

0:47:34.579,0:47:39.499
QUERANT: I have a question. Like when do we[br]actually

0:47:39.499,0:47:42.539
choose a interpreted language versus a compile[br]language,

0:47:42.539,0:47:45.170
is my first question. Like for example,

0:47:45.170,0:47:48.130
Ruby's interpreted language, and like Java[br]is kind of both,

0:47:48.130,0:47:51.749
like when do we actually choose that one is[br]the first question,

0:47:51.749,0:47:53.420
and second question is-

0:47:53.420,0:48:00.420
H.K.: Just ask one question. Please ask one[br]question.

0:48:02.509,0:48:08.569
QUERANT: Yeah. The question is asked.

0:48:08.569,0:48:14.660
Y.K.: So, OK again this is, as Baishampayan[br]said,

0:48:14.660,0:48:19.209
it's kind of a black art. But roughly the[br]euristics that I used were,

0:48:19.209,0:48:23.930
is primarily driven by is the system gonna[br]be

0:48:23.930,0:48:30.930
CPU-bound or IO-bound? What kind of latencies[br]do you need? Do you want

0:48:34.939,0:48:38.319
(00:48:27 - dead audio - 00:48:42)

0:48:38.319,0:48:43.400
I'd probably go straight away to

0:48:43.400,0:48:48.489
Java or any other static-type language,

0:48:48.489,0:48:49.660
which gives those kind of performance.

0:48:49.660,0:48:53.979
So I think latency is one. I don't know - you[br]might-

0:48:53.979,0:48:56.579
B.G.: So I would say that the differences[br]between

0:48:56.579,0:48:58.989
interpreted and compile languages, they are[br]kind of

0:48:58.989,0:49:02.069
like blurring these days. I think you, what[br]you really mean,

0:49:02.069,0:49:05.380
is a native language versus a language that[br]runs in the VM.

0:49:05.380,0:49:11.670
OK. So I think VMs are as fast as natively[br]compiled languages today.

0:49:11.670,0:49:16.729
And so for example, one of the lowest latency[br]languages

0:49:16.729,0:49:19.890
would be Erlang, but it's not really a natively

0:49:19.890,0:49:23.430
ompiled language for that matter.

0:49:23.430,0:49:27.809
So again, Yogi is absolutely right, it depends[br]on the problem.

0:49:27.809,0:49:30.829
If it's CPO-bound, maybe you should use a[br]language

0:49:30.829,0:49:33.769
which spits out a native binary or maybe

0:49:33.769,0:49:36.699
has a very fast git compiler inside of VM.

0:49:36.699,0:49:40.999
Or if it's IO-bound, which most web-applications[br]are by the way,

0:49:40.999,0:49:44.009
then just use Python, Ruby or whatever, or[br]JavaScript.

0:49:44.009,0:49:48.549
C.F.: Yeah, but in, it is a blurring not only[br]of that boundary,

0:49:48.549,0:49:50.489
but a blurring of concerns.

0:49:50.489,0:49:55.749
So like you said you have never used Ruby[br]for something that

0:49:55.749,0:49:57.019
requires that low-latency. That's because[br]Ruby's not fast enough,

0:49:57.019,0:49:58.180
not because it's an interpretive language,[br]right.

0:49:58.180,0:50:04.199
If it were, yeah, so I would personally say[br]on anything where

0:50:04.199,0:50:04.439
I don't mind having the source code present,[br]which means any

0:50:04.439,0:50:04.509
server-side thing for example, I would use[br]interpretive languages,

0:50:04.509,0:50:04.829
because it's a pain in the ass, I don't want[br]to do that.

0:50:04.829,0:50:05.099
And what all of these things do is the answer,[br]effectively

0:50:05.099,0:50:05.249
just compile it for you, anyway.

0:50:05.249,0:50:05.449
QUERANT: My question is for all panel members.

0:50:05.449,0:50:05.640
From invention of a competitive we're seeing[br]that

0:50:05.640,0:50:05.839
there are so many languages came and gone,

0:50:05.839,0:50:12.839
and each language right on the veil,

0:50:13.199,0:50:20.199
are serving out their time.

0:50:34.289,0:50:41.289
I would say that today Ruby is one of those[br]languages riding on the veil.

0:50:44.680,0:50:48.229
C is the only language which is there for[br]a long time,

0:50:48.229,0:50:51.430
and it is from the starting of the computer[br]still it is there.

0:50:51.430,0:50:55.529
So my question is, how long do you think that[br]the Ruby will be last,

0:50:55.529,0:50:59.479
and what is going to be the next veil? Will[br]it be Closure, or Scala,

0:50:59.479,0:51:03.650
Go or any other language, because the moment[br]is coming to the market

0:51:03.650,0:51:06.709
and total paradigm of programming is changing.

0:51:06.709,0:51:09.469
B.G.: Great question. I will just, in my recollection,

0:51:09.469,0:51:12.130
the oldest language that is still in existence[br]is Lisp,

0:51:12.130,0:51:17.689
and not C. It predates Unix and C by twenty[br]years.

0:51:17.689,0:51:18.209
And anyway-

0:51:18.209,0:51:21.039
C.F.: So that's a huge wave is what you're[br]saying.

0:51:21.039,0:51:22.160
B.G.: Huge wave.

0:51:22.160,0:51:27.029
C.F.: We're still in the Lisp bubble, which[br]will soon burst.

0:51:27.029,0:51:30.989
Everyone will realize that was stupid.

0:51:30.989,0:51:35.059
Do you really want an answer to that question.[br]We didn't really answer it.

0:51:35.059,0:51:38.339
B.G.: So languages do come and go but paradigms[br]do stay,

0:51:38.339,0:51:40.869
OK. So fine, don't focus on languages,

0:51:40.869,0:51:42.839
focus on learning different paradigms.

0:51:42.839,0:51:45.849
C.F.: But they don't really come and go that[br]much.

0:51:45.849,0:51:47.390
I mean think about it, like-

0:51:47.390,0:51:49.699
B.G.: They might, like PHP fell out of favor.

0:51:49.699,0:51:51.890
C.F.: But it's not, not it's out of fashion.[br]Fashion.

0:51:51.890,0:51:53.049
B.G.: It is that.

0:51:53.049,0:51:55.799
C.F.: It is heavily deployed, right, you're[br]running it.

0:51:55.799,0:51:57.059
So it still exists.

0:51:57.059,0:51:59.880
H.K.: A bit sheepishly but running.

0:51:59.880,0:52:04.410
V.K.: But remember one thing. Ruby is older[br]than Java.

0:52:04.410,0:52:06.529
It's been there since 2004.

0:52:06.529,0:52:08.549
But how many people started referring to Ruby

0:52:08.549,0:52:12.170
until Ruby on Rails came? So it's a solution[br]that language

0:52:12.170,0:52:15.199
or a framework provides this, what inspired[br]everything.

0:52:15.199,0:52:18.140
In fact Ruby on Rails inspired the entire[br]ecosystem

0:52:18.140,0:52:21.420
much more of other languages beyond just Ruby.

0:52:21.420,0:52:24.959
So that's in fact, it's Ruby on Rails that[br]made Ruby popular.

0:52:24.959,0:52:28.299
B.G.: It's also Ruby's Achille's heel, by[br]the way.

0:52:28.299,0:52:30.449
V.K.: Absolutely. There's a downside to it,[br]extra-

0:52:30.449,0:52:32.329
B.G.: I'll keep patching FTW, right? Not.

0:52:32.329,0:52:34.869
V.K.: But remember, you know, we were doing[br]all

0:52:34.869,0:52:38.849
this web XML business till Ruby on Rails came[br]about,

0:52:38.849,0:52:42.789
and all this other stuff. So what changed,[br]if you were to call it,

0:52:42.789,0:52:45.989
you would call it Ruby on Rails for the better,[br]rather than Ruby-

0:52:45.989,0:52:47.839
H.K.: Are you saying that the whole rest

0:52:47.839,0:52:52.119
thing was because of Rails? Venkat?

0:52:52.119,0:52:56.339
V.K.: Certainly the moment was more simplification,

0:52:56.339,0:52:58.259
convection over configuration,

0:52:58.259,0:53:00.249
so that's what the Ruby on Rails was inspiring.

0:53:00.249,0:53:01.479
So you could just say that, you know,

0:53:01.479,0:53:03.809
people who were doing Ruby on Rails were doing[br]more

0:53:03.809,0:53:05.759
rest than people who were doing dot net

0:53:05.759,0:53:06.949
and doing the sub-business.

0:53:06.949,0:53:10.809
But by the way, sub seems to be effectively[br]dead, right.

0:53:10.809,0:53:12.999
C.F.: But unfortunately it's dead

0:53:12.999,0:53:16.449
in the same way that PHP is dead. It still[br]exists.

0:53:16.449,0:53:19.599
V.K.: That's true. The same that Colba is[br]dead, right.

0:53:19.599,0:53:21.369
C.F.: And Colba, for that matter. Sorry kids.

0:53:21.369,0:53:25.189
V.K.: And that will never go away, because[br]as long as-

0:53:25.189,0:53:30.739
H.K.: So the next question that I wanted to[br]ask is like,

0:53:30.739,0:53:32.160
Yogi talked about in his presentation, like,

0:53:32.160,0:53:35.269
how using a service architecture,

0:53:35.269,0:53:37.829
like for interface-based for, you know like[br]multiple small

0:53:37.829,0:53:39.759
micro-applications, small applications.

0:53:39.759,0:53:42.739
So the next question is like how do you go[br]about

0:53:42.739,0:53:45.029
in an organization, you have a product,

0:53:45.029,0:53:46.849
or maybe more than one product.

0:53:46.849,0:53:51.249
How do you go about building a true polyglot[br]system,

0:53:51.249,0:53:53.479
where you know like programmers are encouraged[br]to come

0:53:53.479,0:53:55.839
and you know like use different languages.

0:53:55.839,0:53:58.839
Does this require like some previous thought,

0:53:58.839,0:54:00.459
or does it happen automatically, like, yeah.

0:54:00.459,0:54:04.099
What are the best practices and everything?

0:54:04.099,0:54:08.189
C.F.: It's for one of us isn't it.

0:54:08.189,0:54:11.390
Or he says it's for me and I say it's for[br]you.

0:54:11.390,0:54:15.779
OK, so I, actually Yogi did sort of answer[br]this a minute ago.

0:54:15.779,0:54:18.209
You know, you really do need to focus on the

0:54:18.209,0:54:20.430
architecture of the system first.

0:54:20.430,0:54:23.089
That's essentially what my whole rant was[br]this morning,

0:54:23.089,0:54:25.859
is about the architecture of a system that's

0:54:25.859,0:54:31.709
made of small components that interact in[br]well-defined ways

0:54:31.709,0:54:35.160
with very clear responsibilities of each component,

0:54:35.160,0:54:37.849
and the components can and will be thrown[br]away.

0:54:37.849,0:54:40.749
I think for us once we have that set up,

0:54:40.749,0:54:44.199
I really can say yes, write a service in Rust,

0:54:44.199,0:54:46.329
I don't care. I don't even know what it looks[br]like,

0:54:46.329,0:54:48.229
I haven't bothered to read about it yet.

0:54:48.229,0:54:50.559
It's fine. Yeah, it's like C++.

0:54:50.559,0:54:54.019
So yeah it's excellent. It's battle-worn.

0:54:54.019,0:54:57.369
But if it performs well enough

0:54:57.369,0:54:59.239
and it actually works and we're monitoring[br]it

0:54:59.239,0:55:03.319
and doing these, and it's deployable in the[br]way that we can deploy,

0:55:03.319,0:55:06.799
I don't need an ecosystem for polyglot programming[br]then.

0:55:06.799,0:55:09.209
I just need to encourage people to try things

0:55:09.209,0:55:13.049
and to throw them away if they didn't work[br]out.

0:55:13.049,0:55:15.119
H.K.: Venkat, you had something-

0:55:15.119,0:55:16.349
V.K.: Actually there's something

0:55:16.349,0:55:18.829
we just talked about this morning.

0:55:18.829,0:55:21.609
We have to move away from a language requiring

0:55:21.609,0:55:23.939
to be hidden in a web service just to be safe,

0:55:23.939,0:55:25.549
and you can throw it away later.

0:55:25.549,0:55:28.420
I think the languages will have to find a[br]way to work together,

0:55:28.420,0:55:30.949
where you don't need to hide things behind[br]rest.

0:55:30.949,0:55:33.809
All these languages will have to come with[br]a way to improve,

0:55:33.809,0:55:36.869
thereby they should, Ruby should really

0:55:36.869,0:55:38.519
see a world of coexistence with Java,

0:55:38.519,0:55:40.630
and a world of coexistence with dot net.

0:55:40.630,0:55:42.579
Because in many cases we develop in, like[br]JRuby,

0:55:42.579,0:55:45.079
right. You develop in Ruby and you deploy[br]it in Java,

0:55:45.079,0:55:47.359
or J to E, with all the monitoring tools,

0:55:47.359,0:55:49.189
and you talked about profiling.

0:55:49.189,0:55:52.509
JVM and the JV-maker system is very great[br]for deployments

0:55:52.509,0:55:55.709
actually better. So in order for you to use[br]it,

0:55:55.709,0:55:58.309
the Ruby language has to become friendly with[br]Java.

0:55:58.309,0:55:59.910
The simplest thing for example is RJB, which[br]is a bridge to

0:55:59.910,0:56:03.390
Java, which is still, we use by the way,

0:56:03.390,0:56:05.170
over in JRuby as well as separately.

0:56:05.170,0:56:07.299
So you need a way to actually have one language

0:56:07.299,0:56:09.769
talk to another in somewhat standardized,[br]simpler,

0:56:09.769,0:56:11.049
less overhead mechanism.

0:56:11.049,0:56:14.079
And I think that would really encourage people

0:56:14.079,0:56:16.599
to use different languages without having

0:56:16.599,0:56:19.499
to build this up layer or risk layer.

0:56:19.499,0:56:21.679
Y.K.: So you're saying that at like binary[br]level,

0:56:21.679,0:56:24.849
actually like a foreign function interface[br]and.

0:56:24.849,0:56:27.119
I think the simplest way to do that is still[br]over the network.

0:56:27.119,0:56:29.140
Like when it's rest or it's zero MQO or whatever,[br]right,

0:56:29.140,0:56:31.599
it's like independent processes interacting[br]with each other,

0:56:31.599,0:56:33.599
isolated, not messing with each other.

0:56:33.599,0:56:36.519
It just works well. Not convince the RJB or-

0:56:36.519,0:56:38.369
V.K.: You're talking about it from an architecting

0:56:38.369,0:56:41.189
a bigger system standpoint, but I'm just talking[br]about

0:56:41.189,0:56:43.809
simply, I'm running this web application,[br]but certain

0:56:43.809,0:56:45.920
part has to be paralyzed. I should be able[br]to do it

0:56:45.920,0:56:50.539
with less overhead, less new layers, if a[br]simpler

0:56:50.539,0:56:52.329
problem exists where that's applicable, right.

0:56:52.329,0:56:54.150
What you were just talking about, it's applicable,

0:56:54.150,0:56:56.689
has certain complexity and certain layer,[br]but

0:56:56.689,0:56:59.259
generally encouraging people to apply multiple

0:56:59.259,0:57:01.589
languages to a single solution, right now,

0:57:01.589,0:57:02.809
has so much overhead.

0:57:02.809,0:57:06.109
I mean, today colleges are teach kids,

0:57:06.109,0:57:07.969
people about different languages,

0:57:07.969,0:57:09.640
but it's as if, like if you don't get a job

0:57:09.640,0:57:12.589
in Java then go and look for a dot net job.

0:57:12.589,0:57:14.359
That's really how we are learning multiple[br]languages,

0:57:14.359,0:57:16.400
so but we are not learning, it's not that

0:57:16.400,0:57:17.609
we are not learning multiple languages,

0:57:17.609,0:57:20.469
but we are not polyglots by default or

0:57:20.469,0:57:22.589
by simplicity of the system.

0:57:22.589,0:57:24.910
That is I believe, if you want to be,

0:57:24.910,0:57:26.289
if you want to encourage polyglotism,

0:57:26.289,0:57:27.829
you just have to go to the next level

0:57:27.829,0:57:30.479
where languages will have to coexist with[br]each other.

0:57:30.479,0:57:30.949
B.G.: I think-

0:57:30.949,0:57:32.319
V.K.: That is what we built with that notion.

0:57:32.319,0:57:33.929
B.G.: Fair enough. So I think co-existence[br]can

0:57:33.929,0:57:35.910
be looked at from different angles.

0:57:35.910,0:57:39.269
I think what you're talking about is run-time[br]co-existence,

0:57:39.269,0:57:42.609
you know, inside one run-time you have multiple[br]languages running.

0:57:42.609,0:57:44.439
I don't know that that's technically feasible-

0:57:44.439,0:57:46.069
V.K.: It may not be run time, it may not be

0:57:46.069,0:57:48.660
a single process co-existence- it would be[br]a multi-process.

0:57:48.660,0:57:51.429
B.G.: But it would have to be over some network,[br]right.

0:57:51.429,0:57:53.039
V.K.: No. For example, take RGB.

0:57:53.039,0:57:54.380
B.G.: How does it work?

0:57:54.380,0:57:56.059
V.K.: It's almost like you're just calling

0:57:56.059,0:57:57.299
it into the process and kind of like-

0:57:57.299,0:57:58.189
B.G.: But how does it really work?

0:57:58.189,0:57:59.819
V.K.: It could even be-

0:57:59.819,0:58:01.670
C.F.: It's still one process, right, RGB.

0:58:01.670,0:58:02.670
B.G.: Yeah it's still one process.

0:58:02.670,0:58:03.400
V.K.: I agree.

0:58:03.400,0:58:04.859
B.G.: It's still one process, right.

0:58:04.859,0:58:06.569
V.K.: JVM does its own thing, right.

0:58:06.569,0:58:08.509
In a way JVM has its own layer-

0:58:08.509,0:58:10.420
B.G.: But ultimately it's all JVM bite code-

0:58:10.420,0:58:11.380
V.K.: True.

0:58:11.380,0:58:14.529
B.G.: So I think we are all building, or have[br]to

0:58:14.529,0:58:17.079
build distributor systems at the end of the[br]day today,

0:58:17.079,0:58:18.829
and we're also trying to build abstractions.

0:58:18.829,0:58:20.999
Right, that is the whole goal of building

0:58:20.999,0:58:24.949
a software architecture that lets, let me[br]find out which parts

0:58:24.949,0:58:26.809
I can abstract and how.

0:58:26.809,0:58:28.769
So what Yogi talked about,

0:58:28.769,0:58:30.049
and totally agree with him,

0:58:30.049,0:58:34.869
I think the best approach is to abstract away[br]the optimal concerns

0:58:34.869,0:58:35.939
and constructs of the system

0:58:35.939,0:58:38.829
and tie them together using one language

0:58:38.829,0:58:40.420
that is spoken on the system.

0:58:40.420,0:58:43.410
So I think they used JSON in JSON Schema for[br]the-

0:58:43.410,0:58:44.189
Y.K.: It was in HTTP.

0:58:44.189,0:58:45.289
B.G.: It was in HTTP, OK, yeah.

0:58:45.289,0:58:48.309
So what you could use- you guys use it-

0:58:48.309,0:58:50.459
you could use a message queue or maybe use

0:58:50.459,0:58:53.359
something like zero in cue sockets to communicate

0:58:53.359,0:58:57.939
over and maybe use Thrift or even JSON data[br]for communication, but-

0:58:57.939,0:58:58.509
H.K.: So-

0:58:58.509,0:59:01.439
B.G.: The idea is to basically build a system

0:59:01.439,0:59:04.789
of optimal components tied together but using[br]one system,

0:59:04.789,0:59:06.439
but then for the message buzz you can either

0:59:06.439,0:59:09.439
use a socket or a message queue.

0:59:09.439,0:59:14.400
H.K.: So, there's definitely a lot of tools[br]which are,

0:59:14.400,0:59:18.259
like run-times that exist which allow run-time[br]re-use of languages,

0:59:18.259,0:59:22.219
for example like, either on top of the LLVM[br]or on top of JVM,

0:59:22.219,0:59:24.929
you know like how you have Closure collections[br]you can use

0:59:24.929,0:59:27.309
from JRuby actually, there are projects that[br]allow that.

0:59:27.309,0:59:29.289
Do you think that all those are basically[br]toys

0:59:29.289,0:59:32.599
and shouldn't be used in any seriousness?

0:59:32.599,0:59:35.209
B.G.: Closure collections are not toys.

0:59:35.209,0:59:39.369
But what I would say that, I think that this[br]idea,

0:59:39.369,0:59:42.549
it can be applied to the JVM languages,

0:59:42.549,0:59:44.109
but many times you have to use some language

0:59:44.109,0:59:46.910
which is not available on the JVM, right.

0:59:46.910,0:59:48.499
And you cannot use LLVM for it,

0:59:48.499,0:59:50.809
because it's something which is much lower[br]level

0:59:50.809,0:59:53.679
than the JVM. So you'll have to use the network

0:59:53.679,0:59:57.019
to communicate over each other.

0:59:57.019,0:59:59.640
But as far as JVM languages are concerned,[br]yeah, why not.

0:59:59.640,1:00:03.849
At a theoretical level, inter-opt between[br]languages

1:00:03.849,1:00:06.890
is something that we should shoot for. Absolutely.

1:00:06.890,1:00:10.130
QUERANT: I have a complaint and a question[br]here.

1:00:10.130,1:00:13.609
Complaint: You're arguing too much.

1:00:13.609,1:00:17.429
You obviously are in disagreement.

1:00:17.429,1:00:18.199
So

1:00:18.199,1:00:22.009
B.G.: Agreeing too each other.

1:00:22.009,1:00:26.799
C.F.: Closure collections are a toy then-

1:00:26.799,1:00:29.479
I actually, when he was saying are these things[br]a toy,

1:00:29.479,1:00:32.989
I don't mean Closure collections, but I do[br]think that,

1:00:32.989,1:00:38.339
the whole idea of interrupt in a VM or in[br]a process is overrated.

1:00:38.339,1:00:40.709
And I think it's overrated, like,

1:00:40.709,1:00:43.920
I remember being at Fu Camp talking to the[br]parrot guys

1:00:43.920,1:00:46.929
and LLVM guys awhile back in a workshop,

1:00:46.929,1:00:48.089
and they were all complaining because they

1:00:48.089,1:00:52.079
had tried to do like JavaScript on all these[br]different VMs.

1:00:52.079,1:00:53.910
They realized that like an array in JavaScript

1:00:53.910,1:00:55.640
has different semantics then like an array[br]in Java

1:00:55.640,1:00:57.939
and an array in Ruby. You know if you add

1:00:57.939,1:01:00.890
something way off in the distance,

1:01:00.890,1:01:02.759
past the end of the array, in some languages

1:01:02.759,1:01:04.789
it's an error and in some languages it nil[br]fills,

1:01:04.789,1:01:07.849
in some languages it's you know, so like,

1:01:07.849,1:01:09.069
that's a really stupid example,

1:01:09.069,1:01:12.380
and you can all imagine there's some way to[br]solve that.

1:01:12.380,1:01:15.239
But with the more interesting features of[br]the language,

1:01:15.239,1:01:18.429
that lead us to want to be polyglots,

1:01:18.429,1:01:20.920
like I don't really think it makes sense to[br]instantiate

1:01:20.920,1:01:23.150
a Ruby class from Java, for example.

1:01:23.150,1:01:24.329
Because the Ruby class does different

1:01:24.329,1:01:27.799
things than the Java class and vice versa.

1:01:27.799,1:01:30.289
Yes it can sometimes be nice.

1:01:30.289,1:01:31.279
So like when you're in Closure

1:01:31.279,1:01:33.039
and you want to use someone's ancient

1:01:33.039,1:01:35.579
Java library that has been working for years,

1:01:35.579,1:01:37.519
you just do it. When you do it, though,

1:01:37.519,1:01:39.400
it's hideous, and it like, the Java interrupt

1:01:39.400,1:01:42.079
is really not nice. And you know you're doing[br]-

1:01:42.079,1:01:44.819
it works fine. But it's uglier than Closure[br]code.

1:01:44.819,1:01:46.849
Right, so then you want to write something[br]so it

1:01:46.849,1:01:49.699
looks like Closure and feels like Closure.

1:01:49.699,1:01:53.839
So personally I think an operating system[br]is also

1:01:53.839,1:01:56.509
like one process, you can think of it that[br]way these days.

1:01:56.509,1:01:59.219
It didn't use to be the case. But I can spin[br]one up

1:01:59.219,1:02:01.619
and start running it, and then have language[br]interrupt

1:02:01.619,1:02:05.049
with multiple processes in there talking via[br]sockets,

1:02:05.049,1:02:07.559
and it's conceptually not very different.[br]Like if

1:02:07.559,1:02:09.489
I describe it to my mom she won't know the[br]difference

1:02:09.489,1:02:12.119
between that and a virtual machine, so.

1:02:12.119,1:02:14.019
B.G.: There's domain sockets in Unix, right.

1:02:14.019,1:02:15.219
C.F.: Oh yeah domain sockets in Unix. Of course.

1:02:15.219,1:02:16.739
This might be the solution, then.

1:02:16.739,1:02:19.099
QUERANT: Quick question to all the panelists.

1:02:19.099,1:02:22.609
As we stand today, what is the minimum number[br]of languages,

1:02:22.609,1:02:28.410
minimum set-up languages you would recommend[br]to all the programmers.

1:02:28.410,1:02:32.559
H.K.: 01:02:30 - dead audio

1:02:32.559,1:02:38.449
C.F.: Did you tell him his question was invalid,[br]is that it? I disagree.

1:02:38.449,1:02:43.890
H.K.: So what I was trying to-

1:02:43.890,1:02:44.489
B.G.: I would say it's a really awesome question.

1:02:44.489,1:02:47.839
I would say is that maybe don't worry too[br]much about

1:02:47.839,1:02:49.799
the number of languages that you are learning,

1:02:49.799,1:02:52.519
but number of different paradigms that you[br]are learning, right.

1:02:52.519,1:02:58.660
H.K.: So the question was like, like a kind[br]of paraphrasing, like, so-

1:02:58.660,1:03:01.679
B.G.: Doesn't matter. Look at the paradigms.

1:03:01.679,1:03:05.130
If you already know C, then don't bother about[br]C++,

1:03:05.130,1:03:07.759
you know, for example, or whatever.

1:03:07.759,1:03:12.189
H.K.: Yeah so the next question I had here[br]was like,

1:03:12.189,1:03:15.529
I'm just jumping back and forth, but like[br]yeah,

1:03:15.529,1:03:18.349
what next programming languages, like for[br]example,

1:03:18.349,1:03:22.829
you guys are looking forward to. Like you[br]know

1:03:22.829,1:03:26.499
starting with Swami like, sorry, Venkat, like-

1:03:26.499,1:03:30.669
V.K.: OK I'm just looking for a better Ruby.

1:03:30.669,1:03:32.809
H.K.: What do you mean by that?

1:03:32.809,1:03:35.069
V.K.: It's more of- I'm just looking for a

1:03:35.069,1:03:37.039
standardized Ruby where I should be able to

1:03:37.039,1:03:39.529
switch between the Java world and the MRA[br]world,

1:03:39.529,1:03:41.880
without lots of friction and you know, and[br]better

1:03:41.880,1:03:43.709
performing Ruby generally speaking. When as[br]much

1:03:43.709,1:03:47.089
as we just talked about low-level you know[br]you talk

1:03:47.089,1:03:48.749
low-latency stuff. I think we can't keep saying[br]that

1:03:48.749,1:03:53.509
Ruby's, you know, it's really slow for a reason,[br]right.

1:03:53.509,1:03:57.630
And Ruby can run in a hot spot. I want- Java[br]was slow

1:03:57.630,1:04:00.069
because of hot- before hotspot. But Java became[br]very,

1:04:00.069,1:04:03.410
very fast through that time and lots of new[br]work has

1:04:03.410,1:04:05.259
put in there. So there has to be some research[br]into

1:04:05.259,1:04:08.079
performance in Ruby I think or something.[br]I'm just looking

1:04:08.079,1:04:13.739
for better Ruby essentially. For my investment[br]of time and

1:04:13.739,1:04:15.999
language. But certainly, I mean I would like[br]to learn Scala

1:04:15.999,1:04:17.499
and stuff that like, something.

1:04:17.499,1:04:20.709
B.G.: So for me learning a new programming[br]language is

1:04:20.709,1:04:24.109
more like a cognitive exercise to expand my[br]own thought

1:04:24.109,1:04:29.679
processes, not specifically to you know apply[br]in production.

1:04:29.679,1:04:33.199
So the new language that I will be learning[br]in 2014 is Factor,

1:04:33.199,1:04:35.369
and you should check it out.

1:04:35.369,1:04:39.059
C.F.: I was gonna say Factor.

1:04:39.059,1:04:41.109
We should not sit next to each other. We're[br]too similar.

1:04:41.109,1:04:44.229
H.K.: Why, but why, can you just like say[br]why exactly Factor?

1:04:44.229,1:04:48.779
C.F.: I would say Factor because it really[br]hurts to,

1:04:48.779,1:04:50.329
it hurts in a non-stupid way.

1:04:50.329,1:04:53.890
Like if you learn Befunge it hurts in a stupid[br]way.

1:04:53.890,1:04:57.369
Like there's no reason to learn Befunge except[br]for fun.

1:04:57.369,1:05:00.729
Factor, though, there's something clearly[br]there, right.

1:05:00.729,1:05:07.269
It's concatenative programming. It's a different[br]way of having to think.

1:05:07.269,1:05:10.229
And it's a different way that to me feels

1:05:10.229,1:05:15.469
like it's deeper than it is stupid. It, so,[br]actually

1:05:15.469,1:05:19.949
I wouldn't probably learn it now, but I almost[br]said that though.

1:05:19.949,1:05:21.439
It was on my list.

1:05:21.439,1:05:25.459
B.G.: I already know APL and a little bit[br]of J maybe.

1:05:25.459,1:05:28.679
But APL is, again another concatenative language,

1:05:28.679,1:05:30.259
which inspired Factor.

1:05:30.259,1:05:33.630
APL is some language which I can read but[br]cannot type,

1:05:33.630,1:05:36.269
because to type APL code you need a separate[br]keyboard.

1:05:36.269,1:05:39.749
That's why I'm learning Factor this year.

1:05:39.749,1:05:41.079
H.K.: Yogi?

1:05:41.079,1:05:45.719
Y.K.: I don't know, Sanskrit, maybe. (01:04:41[br]??)

1:05:45.719,1:05:48.880
But yeah, I think Go or Haskel.

1:05:48.880,1:05:53.089
I think there the most differences from what[br]I already know, so.

1:05:53.089,1:05:57.890
H.K.: Fair enough. So I think a lot of first[br]-

1:05:57.890,1:06:01.319
learn programming languages and then the Dave[br]Thomas

1:06:01.319,1:06:04.729
like his book Pragmatic Programmer recommends[br]like learn

1:06:04.729,1:06:06.259
a programming language a year actually.

1:06:06.259,1:06:09.809
And so one of the things that I've been

1:06:09.809,1:06:13.150
wondering is like, how do you exactly like

1:06:13.150,1:06:15.209
go about learning a language? You cannot,

1:06:15.209,1:06:18.689
so like you cannot go to Flipkart and deploy

1:06:18.689,1:06:21.049
a production system in Hascal, that, I don't

1:06:21.049,1:06:24.579
know if you allow, but we talked about that[br]already, actually.

1:06:24.579,1:06:26.759
So but like how do, how does a person like

1:06:26.759,1:06:28.390
when picking up a language go about

1:06:28.390,1:06:32.229
learning a programming language, and like[br]so-

1:06:32.229,1:06:35.339
V.K.: So I think I've probably got the -

1:06:35.339,1:06:39.059
so yeah like. I actually read the manual.

1:06:39.059,1:06:44.059
Yeah, I'm so boring. And so I just read the[br]manual

1:06:44.059,1:06:47.400
just to get a flavor of what it's about and[br]what's possible.

1:06:47.400,1:06:50.559
Without going deeply into it it usually takes

1:06:50.559,1:06:51.619
like a few hours, because it's really superficial.

1:06:51.619,1:06:53.669
But once I get a sense of what the language[br]is about,

1:06:53.669,1:06:54.979
what the code constructs are, then do a second[br]pass

1:06:54.979,1:06:55.549
to kind of just decide really what's it about

1:06:55.549,1:06:56.109
and then play around with some code. But as-

1:06:56.109,1:06:56.419
(01:07:03 - dead audio space 01:07:47)

1:06:56.419,1:06:57.049
C.F.: I would try to do some simple services

1:06:57.049,1:07:01.809
and you know stuff with Actors running in[br]the background.

1:07:01.809,1:07:08.809
And whenever I saw something I didn't understand

1:07:29.609,1:07:36.609
I would just go look in the source code for[br]play.

1:07:51.839,1:07:58.839
Then I would look at this crazy Scala type[br]stuff

1:07:58.900,1:08:00.739
and have to then read the manual for a few[br]hours

1:08:00.739,1:08:03.619
to figure out what's happening. But now I[br]will never forget,

1:08:03.619,1:08:06.390
because I encountered it through a painful[br]situation,

1:08:06.390,1:08:11.119
so I have like the emotional trigger to never[br]let go of that knowledge.

1:08:11.119,1:08:12.910
B.G.: That's interesting, yeah.

1:08:12.910,1:08:16.660
I think, so every new language brings a different[br]way

1:08:16.660,1:08:20.420
of thinking to the table. So reading the manual

1:08:20.420,1:08:23.080
should be the first thing that you should[br]do I think.

1:08:23.080,1:08:24.759
Maybe because, usually the manual is written

1:08:24.759,1:08:26.310
by the author of the language,

1:08:26.310,1:08:30.158
or at least some supporting material about[br]the rational

1:08:30.158,1:08:32.368
or the ethos of language.

1:08:32.368,1:08:34.319
And once you have some superficial idea

1:08:34.319,1:08:37.078
what the language, start building something.

1:08:37.078,1:08:39.469
And at the same time look at the source code

1:08:39.469,1:08:41.649
of the language, or maybe the standard library

1:08:41.649,1:08:44.689
or some other products or tools that have[br]already

1:08:44.689,1:08:45.960
been written in that language,

1:08:45.960,1:08:48.479
to get a sense of how things are detected,

1:08:48.479,1:08:50.089
what the idioms could be.

1:08:50.089,1:08:53.948
And basically read more code, and then write.

1:08:53.948,1:08:56.529
I think I've always benefited more from

1:08:56.529,1:08:59.359
reading a lot more code than writing.

1:08:59.359,1:09:02.549
V.K.: Yeah I think the problem comes first[br]in,

1:09:02.549,1:09:02.988
I don't choose a language, just more of a[br]problem,

1:09:02.988,1:09:05.948
and I think this language could be better[br]to solve that problem,

1:09:05.948,1:09:08.179
and then just to find the quickest way to[br]solve the problem

1:09:08.179,1:09:09.719
and learn the crux of the language.

1:09:09.719,1:09:14.429
And then go learn further by looking into[br]the manual and other stuff.

1:09:14.429,1:09:17.589
H.K.: So Chad I was talking to you before

1:09:17.589,1:09:21.889
and like you said like don't just learn a[br]language,

1:09:21.889,1:09:23.460
deploy something production like similar,

1:09:23.460,1:09:27.279
and don't learn a language in a year, like[br]spend time with it.

1:09:27.279,1:09:29.460
Build something, solve a hard problem,

1:09:29.460,1:09:31.988
build something complicated, how do you say-

1:09:31.988,1:09:35.259
C.F.: Well yeah what I was telling you about[br]is Dave Thomas,

1:09:35.259,1:09:37.988
who is one of the authors of Pragmatic Programmer

1:09:37.988,1:09:41.408
who coined this language of the year idea,

1:09:41.408,1:09:44.569
he spoke at RubyConf 2010 and he said that[br]he had

1:09:44.569,1:09:48.069
revised his thoughts on what the challenge[br]should be.

1:09:48.069,1:09:49.908
Instead of just learning a language every[br]year,

1:09:49.908,1:09:53.238
I think he has the same problem I do, he can't[br]retain it.

1:09:53.238,1:09:56.340
He challenged everyone to learn a language[br]and deploy it

1:09:56.340,1:09:58.760
to production every year.

1:09:58.760,1:10:02.360
Because to him again it's the same thing I[br]just described for myself,

1:10:02.360,1:10:05.670
that he personally can't hold on to the knowledge

1:10:05.670,1:10:08.400
unless he experiences the real pain

1:10:08.400,1:10:10.570
of putting something into practice.

1:10:10.570,1:10:11.699
V.K.: Absolutely.

1:10:11.699,1:10:15.280
H.K.: So the pretty much like,

1:10:15.280,1:10:17.550
you learn programming languages like a lot[br]of persons,

1:10:17.550,1:10:21.300
but really our day jobs still requires to[br]programm in Ruby

1:10:21.300,1:10:25.170
or Java or whatever, so, one of the key things[br]like,

1:10:25.170,1:10:28.079
you write Lisp, you become a better Java programmer.

1:10:28.079,1:10:30.659
That's the wisdom so, like, how do you exactly[br]go

1:10:30.659,1:10:32.369
about adopting features, you know like, for[br]example,

1:10:32.369,1:10:37.929
like Closure or Scala or Haskel or Go, and[br]you know

1:10:37.929,1:10:41.789
like the language the you program in day to[br]day,

1:10:41.789,1:10:44.329
maybe for the dayjob. So like,

1:10:44.329,1:10:45.250
B.G.: How do you adopt a new language?

1:10:45.250,1:10:46.630
H.K.: How do you adopt features?

1:10:46.630,1:10:47.260
B.G.: Ideas.

1:10:47.260,1:10:48.199
H.K.: Ideas, yeah.

1:10:48.199,1:10:51.010
B.G.: So, as I said, every language has a[br]different

1:10:51.010,1:10:55.719
way of you know solving problems. So for example

1:10:55.719,1:10:57.110
if I take the example of Closure, in Closure[br]there

1:10:57.110,1:11:01.300
is a lot of emphasis on data. OK, you don't[br]hide data

1:11:01.300,1:11:04.090
inside objects and stuff.

1:11:04.090,1:11:06.840
You basically treat everything as first class[br]data structures

1:11:06.840,1:11:09.750
and then manipulate the data using standard[br]library

1:11:09.750,1:11:12.530
functions and spit it out into a different[br]format

1:11:12.530,1:11:16.280
if you need to. So that, some design or architectural

1:11:16.280,1:11:18.710
thinking that can be applied to any language,[br]right.

1:11:18.710,1:11:21.409
I know people who are actual provisional

1:11:21.409,1:11:23.429
Python programmers, who learned Closure,

1:11:23.429,1:11:25.909
did some real programming in Closure,

1:11:25.909,1:11:28.190
and went back to doing Python

1:11:28.190,1:11:30.929
and came back to me and told me that my Python[br]code

1:11:30.929,1:11:33.320
is so much better now, right.

1:11:33.320,1:11:34.760
So I think it's not just about Closure

1:11:34.760,1:11:39.770
or any specific language, but the idea is[br]that,

1:11:39.770,1:11:42.360
get a taste of the language,

1:11:42.360,1:11:44.550
see how they think about solving problems,

1:11:44.550,1:11:46.079
and you know, you may not be able

1:11:46.079,1:11:47.829
to transport all the ideas,

1:11:47.829,1:11:49.139
like if you like channels in

1:11:49.139,1:11:51.510
Go you cannot build a channel-like thing in[br]Java,

1:11:51.510,1:11:55.360
for example. It would be very hard for you[br]to do it.

1:11:55.360,1:11:58.039
But at least if you have an appreciation for[br]it,

1:11:58.039,1:11:59.079
maybe who knows tomorrow you might

1:11:59.079,1:12:03.199
be able to use a third party library to use[br]it.

1:12:03.199,1:12:06.949
C.F.: There's actually a problem that can[br]happen,

1:12:06.949,1:12:08.840
though. So you can take good things,

1:12:08.840,1:12:12.780
like the data orientation or the ideas of[br]immutability

1:12:12.780,1:12:16.889
by default in Closure and then just try to[br]make your

1:12:16.889,1:12:20.309
Ruby code be like that, because you understand[br]the benefits.

1:12:20.309,1:12:23.429
Or you could do stuff like try

1:12:23.429,1:12:26.039
(01:12:23 - dead audio space - 01:12:36)

1:12:26.039,1:12:30.199
it's even possible to then simulate the features

1:12:30.199,1:12:34.889
of one of these languages that you're learning[br]from,

1:12:34.889,1:12:41.150
but you emulate them in an environment that's[br]not friendly to them,

1:12:41.150,1:12:47.520
and it's a bad idea. So I would say don't[br]go too crazy trying

1:12:47.520,1:12:50.530
to make Ruby be functional more than it is,

1:12:50.530,1:12:52.929
or to be Actor-oriented or whatever.

1:12:52.929,1:12:57.130
B.G.: There will always be incidents (01:12:53)

1:12:57.130,1:12:58.929
in practice, right.

1:12:58.929,1:13:03.329
You'll figure it out if you try to apply it.

1:13:03.329,1:13:07.179
Y.K.: I'm gonna agree with Chad, so.

1:13:07.179,1:13:12.119
V.K. Yeah, OK, I'm not into this functional[br]side

1:13:12.119,1:13:15.880
or you know the Lisp side of Closure set of[br]things yet.

1:13:15.880,1:13:18.190
So my experience is essentially trying to[br]play more

1:13:18.190,1:13:20.520
ideas from Ruby into Java, and there was a-

1:13:20.520,1:13:22.869
you know probably Java at level that we just[br]talked about.

1:13:22.869,1:13:25.710
It's such a, what is it called, a restrictive[br]language.

1:13:25.710,1:13:29.070
There is a lot that I could actually learn[br]and apply to

1:13:29.070,1:13:31.000
Java and Ruby which was really exciting.

1:13:31.000,1:13:31.960
There were libraries,

1:13:31.960,1:13:35.070
I think there were coming up for like

1:13:35.070,1:13:37.360
calling anonymous functions or proc like things

1:13:37.360,1:13:38.900
that I could actually use them.

1:13:38.900,1:13:41.420
So those are, it was not really really tangible[br]at

1:13:41.420,1:13:44.840
specific example I could give. My Java programming[br]extensively improved.

1:13:44.840,1:13:49.360
Or readability of the code improved by having[br]written Ruby code.

1:13:49.360,1:13:51.960
Some of it will actually happen naturally[br]I believe.

1:13:51.960,1:13:54.119
B.G.: I don't think that -

1:13:54.119,1:13:56.340
For example I was doing a lot of Python before

1:13:56.340,1:13:59.710
I started doing some real Lisp programming.

1:13:59.710,1:14:03.050
Python always had the map and filter and reduce[br]functions.

1:14:03.050,1:14:05.400
I was never able to appreciate those functions[br]when

1:14:05.400,1:14:08.320
I was just a Python programmer, OK. For example,

1:14:08.320,1:14:11.630
Closure has something called protocols, OK.

1:14:11.630,1:14:15.550
How many people here have heard about refinements[br]in Ruby 2.0.

1:14:15.550,1:14:17.389
C.F.: Refinements, yeah.

1:14:17.389,1:14:19.550
B.G.: Yeah. It's a new feature.

1:14:19.550,1:14:22.579
So, see, minority. OK, it's a really good[br]feature,

1:14:22.579,1:14:25.900
and it lets you do code monkey patching but[br]restricted

1:14:25.900,1:14:29.369
to a specific module, OK. So I think that,

1:14:29.369,1:14:31.929
Ruby guys don't, are often are don't

1:14:31.929,1:14:36.639
understand benefits then it's kind of like[br]a shame, right.

1:14:36.639,1:14:39.010
Y.K.: Yeah but that's a point right,

1:14:39.010,1:14:40.820
that's something which has to happen at the[br]language level.

1:14:40.820,1:14:44.650
Like as a application developer who's not[br]working on the language itself,

1:14:44.650,1:14:48.539
adoption of features from other languages[br]will run into bottle necks.

1:14:48.539,1:14:52.059
So that's definitely one area where, for example[br]in the Java world, right,

1:14:52.059,1:14:55.500
when you move back from a lot of the ex-Ruby[br]programmers

1:14:55.500,1:14:58.489
move back to Java, and they created some beautiful[br]libraries.

1:14:58.489,1:15:02.520
Like for example I know an ex-thoughtworker[br]who's done

1:15:02.520,1:15:05.599
a library called (01:15:03), which allows[br]you to kind of mimic

1:15:05.599,1:15:07.309
Closures in Java, and it works through

1:15:07.309,1:15:12.750
actually hooking up a Java agent at run time.

1:15:12.750,1:15:14.679
So the point is it's a beautiful experiment,

1:15:14.679,1:15:17.369
but you can't really use that in production

1:15:17.369,1:15:18.579
because your IDs not going to recognize it,

1:15:18.579,1:15:21.280
you know simple things like that which might

1:15:21.280,1:15:23.300
seem like trivial but they actually hurt,[br]because

1:15:23.300,1:15:25.860
another the code syntax highlighting is kind[br]of

1:15:25.860,1:15:28.199
gone for a toss. The debug obviously doesn't[br]work,

1:15:28.199,1:15:28.309
you can't-

1:15:28.309,1:15:33.719
So you got to hook up the agent while running[br]the app.

1:15:33.719,1:15:38.900
So it becomes tricky, so I think a lot of[br]the language

1:15:38.900,1:15:41.719
features which get adopted do get a lot of[br]those frameworks.

1:15:41.719,1:15:44.170
For example, Actor systems, even though we[br]don't have

1:15:44.170,1:15:49.000
it in Java, kind of analogies of that have[br]been funnily

1:15:49.000,1:15:52.409
enough systems like Mule (01:15:40) right,[br]which is again

1:15:52.409,1:15:55.409
enterprising and boring, but essentially it[br]solves

1:15:55.409,1:15:56.949
the same problem. Like not at the language[br]level but

1:15:56.949,1:16:00.190
it allows you to coordinate independent Actors

1:16:00.190,1:16:04.369
and construct bulges (01:16:01) of flows which[br]kind

1:16:04.369,1:16:06.869
of do something productive and allow you to[br]scale

1:16:06.869,1:16:08.270
out in a very simple way, right.

1:16:08.270,1:16:11.550
So frameworks end up kind of taking their[br]place in a certain way.

1:16:11.550,1:16:14.199
I think it's difficult to bring it down to[br]a language very well.

1:16:14.199,1:16:16.579
V.K.: That kind of introduced like using

1:16:16.579,1:16:18.099
play framework in Java, right.

1:16:18.099,1:16:20.139
It actually brings a lot of Rails goodness

1:16:20.139,1:16:23.090
and Rails inspiration into Java, so you don't,

1:16:23.090,1:16:24.500
it's not necessarily about the language weights.

1:16:24.500,1:16:27.409
It's also things like dimension or configuration,

1:16:27.409,1:16:29.440
which can be learned and applied into other[br]languages.

1:16:29.440,1:16:31.969
So just ideas are behind a specific paradigm,

1:16:31.969,1:16:34.750
the simplicity or the philosophy behind it[br]can

1:16:34.750,1:16:37.020
be applied into other languages, like Java[br]from Ruby.

1:16:37.020,1:16:39.889
So I think the framework side of it plays[br]I think a big role.

1:16:39.889,1:16:41.300
Y.K.: Yeah that's a great point because there's

1:16:41.300,1:16:46.230
funnily enough right like a framework like[br]Rails

1:16:46.230,1:16:48.989
or Sinatra was invented in Java. Why is that?

1:16:48.989,1:16:52.030
Because the thought process that's behind[br]Java

1:16:52.030,1:16:54.030
is just not tooled to the kind of thinking[br]and

1:16:54.030,1:16:55.750
such lightweight simplistic services.

1:16:55.750,1:16:59.239
And it only took somebody to kind of look[br]at Ruby,

1:16:59.239,1:17:01.159
see its simplicity and be able to kind of[br]build

1:17:01.159,1:17:02.349
something so simple as Sinatra, like it's[br]beautiful.

1:17:02.349,1:17:04.250
And now that thought process has come out.

1:17:04.250,1:17:05.900
So yeah play's a great example actually.

1:17:05.900,1:17:07.840
V.K.: Yeah I think there's two things you[br]know,

1:17:07.840,1:17:10.929
the discussion kind of weighed towards more[br]towards

1:17:10.929,1:17:14.469
the paradigms, more. But I think there is[br]an

1:17:14.469,1:17:16.280
things like simplicity, conventional configuration

1:17:16.280,1:17:20.409
or concepts, which is another side that languages[br]have,

1:17:20.409,1:17:23.369
which are not specific to how to make parallelism[br]better

1:17:23.369,1:17:25.320
which are not specific to how to do functional[br]programming,

1:17:25.320,1:17:27.340
but still something which was not done before[br]or

1:17:27.340,1:17:29.780
easy enough in your language, which you could[br]have applied.

1:17:29.780,1:17:31.210
You know the language is easier.

1:17:31.210,1:17:32.639
But those are not new libraries

1:17:32.639,1:17:34.570
or nothing to do with really specific functions.

1:17:34.570,1:17:36.969
But you could get better in other languages[br]by

1:17:36.969,1:17:39.179
looking at this other philosophy behind

1:17:39.179,1:17:41.699
the language just beyond a specific paradigm

1:17:41.699,1:17:43.119
of the strength of the language.

1:17:43.119,1:17:47.469
H.K.: So we are about to close the panel discussion.

1:17:47.469,1:17:50.980
Any questions? We have time for questions.

1:17:50.980,1:17:51.659
Actually.

1:17:51.659,1:17:55.179
C.F.: Or how about you just raise your hand

1:17:55.179,1:17:56.199
if you want to ask a question

1:17:56.199,1:17:59.230
and otherwise we'll all get tea. You have[br]a question.

1:17:59.230,1:18:04.739
B.G.: Or we can just move the discussion to[br]the break room.

1:18:04.739,1:18:10.340
We could do that. So let's just you know - OK.

1:18:10.340,1:18:17.340
QUERANT: So I worked in different programming[br]languages.

1:18:17.800,1:18:22.869
So about four to five, so I think programming[br]languages

1:18:22.869,1:18:26.469
rose to such heights because either because[br]the programming

1:18:26.469,1:18:29.170
language itself or through its supporting[br]libraries.

1:18:29.170,1:18:32.539
For example, Ruby was not in so much mainstream[br]until

1:18:32.539,1:18:38.610
Rails came into existence. And Python for[br]scientific calculation.

1:18:38.610,1:18:41.949
C for internal system, you know Linux kind[br]of stuff.

1:18:41.949,1:18:42.969
C++ for games and other stuff.

1:18:42.969,1:18:45.849
So what all, I mean do these programming languages

1:18:45.849,1:18:50.369
have and uh, example like Scala, Closure,[br]Go, Erlang.

1:18:50.369,1:18:53.000
So these are upcoming, like dot also.

1:18:53.000,1:18:54.860
So what do these programming languages have

1:18:54.860,1:18:57.380
that they'll come on call. I mean what do[br]these libraries,

1:18:57.380,1:19:00.420
I mean what are the bigger libraries that[br]they have,

1:19:00.420,1:19:03.170
so that people like me can use them for certain[br]purpose.

1:19:03.170,1:19:06.480
So what all they are useful for?

1:19:06.480,1:19:08.760
C.F.: That'll take awhile.

1:19:08.760,1:19:11.340
B.G.: That's a very long-winded question.

1:19:11.340,1:19:13.909
I'll very quickly answer that.

1:19:13.909,1:19:16.909
Every language probably has a killer app,[br]right,

1:19:16.909,1:19:20.059
to champion it or maybe make it famous or[br]popular.

1:19:20.059,1:19:25.909
Not every, not all languages have one specific[br]killer app,

1:19:25.909,1:19:28.320
for example, while, what would you say the

1:19:28.320,1:19:30.489
killer app for JavaScript is, right?

1:19:30.489,1:19:31.969
Or what about Objective C?

1:19:31.969,1:19:33.949
Right, just that you don't have any other[br]choice

1:19:33.949,1:19:37.400
in those cases, right. If you want to program[br]for the browser,

1:19:37.400,1:19:38.889
JavaScript is your only choice,

1:19:38.889,1:19:42.119
Objective C if you are doing Apple programming,[br]right.

1:19:42.119,1:19:45.030
So yeah, I mean, every once in awhile there

1:19:45.030,1:19:47.929
are projects or libraries or products which

1:19:47.929,1:19:49.480
do come and make something very famous.

1:19:49.480,1:19:54.510
But it may not be true for everything.

1:20:01.400,1:20:02.740
H.K.: If anybody has any other questions

1:20:02.740,1:20:06.000
then I can (drowned out by applause - 01:20:05)

1:20:06.780,1:20:08.740
Thank you.