Is Polyglot Programming Practical?
Is Polyglot Programming Practical?
This article discusses the history of polyglot programming, and considers whether it's still a valid premise.
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
I recently received an email from a well-known consulting firm that said, in essence, “You're a polyglot programmer, we're looking for those, let's talk.”
One simple answer is that, as a consulting firm, they have to staff projects for clients with differing development environments. A person who knows multiple languages will be easier to assign. But I think there's more to it than that: “polyglot programmers” and “polyglot application” are an approach to programming that is espoused by this same firm. One that I don't agree with.
Neal Ford is often credited with coining the term polyglot programming, in a 2006 blog post. His thesis—examined in greater detail by Dean Wampler in this 2010 presentation—is that different languages have strengths in different areas, and programmers should use the best tool for the job.
I don't think that it was coincidence that this philosophy emerged in the mid-2000s, from people associated with the Java ecosystem. This was a time when Java-the-language had stagnated but the JVM was the base for a flourishing community of “not Java” languages. Groovy in 2003, Scala in 2004, and Clojure in 2007 are some of the notable examples, although there are many others. All of these languages offered things that Java did not, higher-order functions being one of the more obvious. And all of them offered the ability (more or less) to interoperate with existing Java code.
Given these new abilities, it seemed only reasonable to adopt them: to use Groovy for your XML processing, or Scala for-comprehensions to process nested structures, or rewrite your multi-threaded code to use Scala actors. And perhaps not stop there, but adopt Martin Fowler's strangler application pattern, replacing the underlying Java code entirely. And who wouldn't want to leave behind Java's verbosity and definitional boilerplate?
Ten years have passed since Neal Ford's post, and I question whether the premise is still valid (if it ever was). Here are a few reasons:
- Increased maintenance cost Many of the people in favor of writing portions of their system in alternative languages point to the efficiency with which they can write code. And while I accept the truth of that, I also realize two things. First, that writing code is a tiny part of initial implementation. And second, that initial implementation is a tiny part of the effort required during an application's lifetime. Given this, using multiple languages for a single application means that all of the people tasked with its maintenance have to be at least comfortable with all of those languages, if not experts. This can be particularly painful if one of the team members has a fondness for an obscure language. But even in the case of popular languages, it can be a problem. One of my projects was with a company whose main service was written in a mix of Node.JS and Rails. I think that their original goal was to transition from Rails to Node, but it went awry: the Rails developers left and the Node developers realized that Node didn't (at that time) have all the features they needed. So both codebases remained a core part of the business, and the company had to find people with both skillsets in order to maintain the software.
While I don't think that polyglot applications are a good idea, I wholeheartedly support learning multiple languages as a way to expand your abilities. A few years ago I worked my way through Programming Erlang, and consider that time well-spent: it introduced me to pattern matching, gave me a deeper understanding of actor systems, and showed me an elegant (if inefficient) way to implement Quicksort.
But it didn't make me want to mix Erlang and Java in a single project.
Published at DZone with permission of Keith Gregory , DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.