Programmers should obviously be polyglots to some extent, but the question here is if conferences should be. Basically do you want 14 high level introductions to 14 different languages or 14 presentations digging deeper and deeper in to one specific language? I can certainly see advantages to both.
I'm sure even your golfer might be interested in attending a masterclass that only covered putting.
Only if you think of programming languages as an individual golf-club.
Put it this way: Is there a conference for professional basketball, baseball AND ice hockey players? I'm not even aware of anyone who managed to go pro in two of those, not to mention all three.
Most programmers have a preferred domain and language. Once you scale past a pet project and have a decently sized team, specializations start to occur, especially as the code base grows beyond what one person can hold in memory.
I'm reminded of the saying "jack of all trades, master of none".
I think they should be (especially as a polyglot myself), but there's also a lot of pressure to super specialize, and not just from employers. Having a network of like-minded developers is an invaluable psychological and career resource.
Do people really only programme in one language? The simple act of connecting to a database and retrieving data by definition requires knowledge of 2 languages. What I think people do do, is silo themselves onto specific technology stacks (e.g. Microsoft solutions).
I'm shocked you're asking that question. Most programmers are vocational and work for corporations. Most corporations try to force standardization. As a result, most programmers are significantly stronger in one language/platform than any other (whether they have any experience in others or not, which they usually will).
As a dumb example, when XMLHTTPREQUEST hit the streets, it was a paradigm shift in enterprise, but a pretty easy one for web developers to add to their toolbox. Years pass.... When everything became javascript, that was much harder, especially for the .Net folks who came from a VB6 background rather than a pure HTTP/TCP/CGI background. Lots of companies are still in infancy with adoption of modern front ends, mostly because their programmers are not polyglots and actively resist learning new things... and you can't just abandon hundreds of legacy apps through hiring better educated, modern web developers with the limited budget most companies have.
A few years ago we made a decision to shift from a .Net (+MSSQL+JQueryUI) stack to a Java stack, mostly for licensing cost avoidance after MS raised the price of SQL Server dramatically with 2012. More than three years later, >90% of our internal apps are still .Net and only a handful have been released on our new preferred stack (Java/PostgreSQL/Bootstrap/Angular) and probably only 10% of the programmers are competent enough to work independently using the new tooling.
This sad state is an area where there's a lot of naivete among young programmers and startups. The corporate world just doesn't work in remotely the same way. ... ironically, a lot of "progressive" corporations end up creating mini-Innovation teams internally with their best & brightest, who are told to "act like a startup" and end up basically creating 75% of all the new stuff ... until it requires an interface to a legacy system and the devs outside the team refuse to cooperate out of fear.
Formally defining is always tricky. For example, I hate seeing "C/C++" and would assume by proxy of the equally absurd but rarely used "C/Objective-C" that I have magically become a C/Objective-C/C++ programmer.
I would consider a polyglot as able to express a full domain of ideas in multiple languages. (For example, knowing latin for biology or religious recitation doesn't make you a normal polyglot, while being able to use it at the breakfast table does.)
So, only if you are one of the few who regularly enjoys the thrill of forcing SQL to do your general computations, would it count in my book towards making you a polyglot in the context of general purpose computing. Similarly, how you choose to use shells would determine whether they count and whether they are each distinct.
I know people who only know one language - some Java, some ActionScript... I think it can be easy to get comfy and not bother learning new languages. After all, Blub is enough for what they do, why would they bother spending time learning a new one?
The irony is that one of my Java friends told me that he could pick up any language on a need basis, and that I was ignorant for not knowing design patterns such as Factory, Visitor, Observer/Observable, etc.
There are one-stack programmers that use only Java/C# with an ORM and all the SAP ABAP developers. Some seem to prefer such jobs, I am not one of them, but to each his own.
I don't work in web development, and write 99.99999% of my code in C++. Every now and again I have to write a config script in batch, but other than that yes
Some people are not only limiting themselves to one set of technologies, but are actively hostile to anything that's not a part of their comfort zone. I'm sad when I think about it.
I know a really smart guy who refuses to do anything other than Java. Baffling. I get that he really loves Java, but there's so much other cool stuff out there!
Does anyone know of a conference that takes a wider view of the job of programming? It has always felt to me like the focus is all about our tools, because tools can look cool, but I'm interested in the process of starting with a messy list of requirements and getting to a completed project in the most successful way, which is often the real challenge in my work.
Nothing against this conference but on the "now have", aren't things like OSCON or Strange Loop technically multi-language cross-pollinated programming conferences? Or is the way some of the talks are about joining two languages the unique draw?
PolyConf founder here; the title is indeed misleading, OP exaggerated. There are many great conferences in the same spirit that existed before. And Strange Loop is our primary inspiration.
Set a variable in one language and use it in another, work with multiple languages on the same page, including javascript, and run them all interactively.
Good conference to have in general. I'd suspect most programmers have a natural interest for different languages/paradigms but practically using them in concert often reveals subtle problems.
I have a decent background in Prolog (hardly an expert) and know it's often a good tool for the job but often shy away from using it regardless.
I hope the "Erlang in multi-lingual systems" talk (all of them for that matter) will be available later :)
"Why should you learn to program Commodore 64 this year?" sounds like the exact kind of talk I'd enjoy.
Prices seem very fair and I love that a %age goes to CodeStarter.
I did an interview at QCon this year (http://www.infoq.com/interviews/John-Graham-Cumming-Polyglot) where I was specifically asked about 'polyglot programming'. The question totally surprised me because I'd never thought of myself like that because it doesn't seem to me that it's anything special at all.
Did anybody else read through the (English language) conference website for the (presumably English language) conference, and wonder to themselves, "Why ... Poland?"
I'm not knocking Poland, but it seems strange to have an English-language conference there and not offer anything in the way of explanation for the choice.
I mean, I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation (central location, picturesque setting, low costs, fits the ethos of a polyglot conference, offers the possibility of both a conference and a vacation) but I find it strange that the explanation isn't more visible.
What is a Polyglot programmer? A programmer who speaks more than his native language (e.g., for me it's German, English, Chinese)? A programmer who codes in more than one language?
I'm interested in programming languages. But I don't know if I'm really a polyglot programmer. Ideally I want to be able to rely on a handful of languages for the vast majority of things that I want to do. If I'm being idealistic, maybe it would be possible to rely on two, or even just one.
But this "one" language would probably have the power to express its own EDSLs for different domains and problems (like Lisps). So in effect, maybe you could say it's many different languages in one. So why not just use many different programming languages instead of one extensible one...?
Because general purpose programming languages seem to end up feeling too monolithic when considering that they might only be used by you for that one thing. Consider two approaches: have one language that solves problems in domain A really well. Then you want to solve problems in domain B really well. But the first language is not suited for that. So you use a totally different language for that. Maybe it has its own interpreter/compiler/library and specification. Maybe you need to interoperate between these languages. What do you do? Inter-language communication seems to be in a sorry state, if the Unix philosophy of "strings anywhere" is the prevailing philosophy. I guess we're supposed to use Json now, perhaps? Corba is dead. I saw a thick old book about it where I work and didn't feel inspired.
Compare that to having a language where you can express domain B more clearly in the first language. It turns out that there was some friction and ceremony with expressing domain B in the first language, but being able to express this as as EDSL -- maybe by using something like macros -- gets you 90-100% of the benefits of using a totally new language. Additionally, there is less underlying complexity -- you have one language derived from the other using constructs from the original language. And ideally you can inspect and unfold this implementation; go through a few layers of macros, perhaps. Contrast this with having two wholly separate languages with their own runtimes, libraries and what have you.
This might be a philosophy of building layers of languages -- actually, probably more like a tree. Or maybe a DAG if you have several implementations that express the same DSL. Contrast this with several distinct implementations of monolithic languages, which probably have no knowledge of each other (languages tend to end up shallowly similar, but subtle in many many small ways; probably Turing Complete which makes analysis tricky or at least not straightforward, certainly not reliable...). But when looked at in isolation they look simple; hey this language is really good at expressing X. It doesn't have that many user-visible constructs. Simplicity! Only when you look at the bigger picture, you see how much effort and code that goes into implementing software that is subtly different, only to give the feeling of simplicity when looked at more in isolation from the whole overarching system.
Some people will look at you in horror if you suggest using a powerful and expressive language. A language that can effectively express a lot of 'languages'. They find things like operator overloading disgusting, because code should look uniform and it should be "obvious" what it is doing. Then they choose to involve 12 different programming languages on a project, because that is obviously good engineering practice. The right tool for the job! The fact that they have to learn and deal with so many languages is apparently trivial to them. The difference between the semantics and ecosystems of a dozen different programming languages is simpler then learning about and judiciously using operator overloading, I guess.
I am not trying to diminish the need for programming languages -- they seem incredibly hard to design, and the more I read about them the more I get convinced of that. There are ever more considerations that they can choose to care about, potentially at the expense of something else immediately next to it or maybe something far away. It doesn't seem like the ones who are designing them are close to converging on designs that express many of the problems that programming languages can/should care about. I look forward to seeing more language (designs) -- hopefully ambitious ones. :-)
tl:dr; I should learn a Lisp. Code truly is data, or it should be. But not even Lisp is able to do everything with sufficiently many macros, it seems.
[+] [-] noir-york|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dagw|10 years ago|reply
I'm sure even your golfer might be interested in attending a masterclass that only covered putting.
[+] [-] fragmede|10 years ago|reply
Put it this way: Is there a conference for professional basketball, baseball AND ice hockey players? I'm not even aware of anyone who managed to go pro in two of those, not to mention all three.
Most programmers have a preferred domain and language. Once you scale past a pet project and have a decently sized team, specializations start to occur, especially as the code base grows beyond what one person can hold in memory.
I'm reminded of the saying "jack of all trades, master of none".
[+] [-] thirdtruck|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwojnowski|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awjr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eitally|10 years ago|reply
As a dumb example, when XMLHTTPREQUEST hit the streets, it was a paradigm shift in enterprise, but a pretty easy one for web developers to add to their toolbox. Years pass.... When everything became javascript, that was much harder, especially for the .Net folks who came from a VB6 background rather than a pure HTTP/TCP/CGI background. Lots of companies are still in infancy with adoption of modern front ends, mostly because their programmers are not polyglots and actively resist learning new things... and you can't just abandon hundreds of legacy apps through hiring better educated, modern web developers with the limited budget most companies have.
A few years ago we made a decision to shift from a .Net (+MSSQL+JQueryUI) stack to a Java stack, mostly for licensing cost avoidance after MS raised the price of SQL Server dramatically with 2012. More than three years later, >90% of our internal apps are still .Net and only a handful have been released on our new preferred stack (Java/PostgreSQL/Bootstrap/Angular) and probably only 10% of the programmers are competent enough to work independently using the new tooling.
This sad state is an area where there's a lot of naivete among young programmers and startups. The corporate world just doesn't work in remotely the same way. ... ironically, a lot of "progressive" corporations end up creating mini-Innovation teams internally with their best & brightest, who are told to "act like a startup" and end up basically creating 75% of all the new stuff ... until it requires an interface to a legacy system and the devs outside the team refuse to cooperate out of fear.
Oh, it's a mad, mad world.
[+] [-] Menge|10 years ago|reply
I would consider a polyglot as able to express a full domain of ideas in multiple languages. (For example, knowing latin for biology or religious recitation doesn't make you a normal polyglot, while being able to use it at the breakfast table does.)
So, only if you are one of the few who regularly enjoys the thrill of forcing SQL to do your general computations, would it count in my book towards making you a polyglot in the context of general purpose computing. Similarly, how you choose to use shells would determine whether they count and whether they are each distinct.
[+] [-] S4M|10 years ago|reply
The irony is that one of my Java friends told me that he could pick up any language on a need basis, and that I was ignorant for not knowing design patterns such as Factory, Visitor, Observer/Observable, etc.
[+] [-] castell|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maccard|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|10 years ago|reply
Back when I was learning, I had Timex 2068 Basic and Z80.
Then at technical school, each class had its own programming language.
Followed by CS degree, with loads of programming languages.
First job, TCL, C, C++, JavaScript, C#, Java, SQL dialects.
Every single job afterwards required proficiency in multiple languages, even JVM/.NET (interaction with OS, languages that target those runtimes).
[+] [-] self_awareness|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcv|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eitally|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] artumi-richard|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnwards|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dagw|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hliyan|10 years ago|reply
That would have been... frightening.
[+] [-] userbinator|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petercooper|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaiste|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spot|10 years ago|reply
Set a variable in one language and use it in another, work with multiple languages on the same page, including javascript, and run them all interactively.
[+] [-] Blackthorn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d08ble|10 years ago|reply
I use LiveComment for same purposes.
https://github.com/d08ble/livecomment
http://acpul.tumblr.com/image/116725190130
[+] [-] kriro|10 years ago|reply
I have a decent background in Prolog (hardly an expert) and know it's often a good tool for the job but often shy away from using it regardless.
I hope the "Erlang in multi-lingual systems" talk (all of them for that matter) will be available later :)
"Why should you learn to program Commodore 64 this year?" sounds like the exact kind of talk I'd enjoy.
Prices seem very fair and I love that a %age goes to CodeStarter.
[+] [-] aflinik|10 years ago|reply
(disclaimer: the author is my friend, but still highly recommended!)
[+] [-] jgrahamc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jawns|10 years ago|reply
I'm not knocking Poland, but it seems strange to have an English-language conference there and not offer anything in the way of explanation for the choice.
I mean, I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation (central location, picturesque setting, low costs, fits the ethos of a polyglot conference, offers the possibility of both a conference and a vacation) but I find it strange that the explanation isn't more visible.
[+] [-] erikb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] igravious|10 years ago|reply
See here http://www.techrepublic.com/article/developers-are-calling-i... for instance
Or here http://radar.oreilly.com/2013/11/polyglot-programming-what-i...
Basically the big G is your friend?
[+] [-] Dewie3|10 years ago|reply
I don't think we needed an example in order to understand "speaks more than his native language".
[+] [-] hamhamed|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaggarwal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dewie3|10 years ago|reply
But this "one" language would probably have the power to express its own EDSLs for different domains and problems (like Lisps). So in effect, maybe you could say it's many different languages in one. So why not just use many different programming languages instead of one extensible one...?
Because general purpose programming languages seem to end up feeling too monolithic when considering that they might only be used by you for that one thing. Consider two approaches: have one language that solves problems in domain A really well. Then you want to solve problems in domain B really well. But the first language is not suited for that. So you use a totally different language for that. Maybe it has its own interpreter/compiler/library and specification. Maybe you need to interoperate between these languages. What do you do? Inter-language communication seems to be in a sorry state, if the Unix philosophy of "strings anywhere" is the prevailing philosophy. I guess we're supposed to use Json now, perhaps? Corba is dead. I saw a thick old book about it where I work and didn't feel inspired.
Compare that to having a language where you can express domain B more clearly in the first language. It turns out that there was some friction and ceremony with expressing domain B in the first language, but being able to express this as as EDSL -- maybe by using something like macros -- gets you 90-100% of the benefits of using a totally new language. Additionally, there is less underlying complexity -- you have one language derived from the other using constructs from the original language. And ideally you can inspect and unfold this implementation; go through a few layers of macros, perhaps. Contrast this with having two wholly separate languages with their own runtimes, libraries and what have you.
This might be a philosophy of building layers of languages -- actually, probably more like a tree. Or maybe a DAG if you have several implementations that express the same DSL. Contrast this with several distinct implementations of monolithic languages, which probably have no knowledge of each other (languages tend to end up shallowly similar, but subtle in many many small ways; probably Turing Complete which makes analysis tricky or at least not straightforward, certainly not reliable...). But when looked at in isolation they look simple; hey this language is really good at expressing X. It doesn't have that many user-visible constructs. Simplicity! Only when you look at the bigger picture, you see how much effort and code that goes into implementing software that is subtly different, only to give the feeling of simplicity when looked at more in isolation from the whole overarching system.
Some people will look at you in horror if you suggest using a powerful and expressive language. A language that can effectively express a lot of 'languages'. They find things like operator overloading disgusting, because code should look uniform and it should be "obvious" what it is doing. Then they choose to involve 12 different programming languages on a project, because that is obviously good engineering practice. The right tool for the job! The fact that they have to learn and deal with so many languages is apparently trivial to them. The difference between the semantics and ecosystems of a dozen different programming languages is simpler then learning about and judiciously using operator overloading, I guess.
I am not trying to diminish the need for programming languages -- they seem incredibly hard to design, and the more I read about them the more I get convinced of that. There are ever more considerations that they can choose to care about, potentially at the expense of something else immediately next to it or maybe something far away. It doesn't seem like the ones who are designing them are close to converging on designs that express many of the problems that programming languages can/should care about. I look forward to seeing more language (designs) -- hopefully ambitious ones. :-)
tl:dr; I should learn a Lisp. Code truly is data, or it should be. But not even Lisp is able to do everything with sufficiently many macros, it seems.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]