Monday, 21 December 2009

Local language trends 2009

I just had a look on the statistics pages on our local IT freelancer website ( and found the results pretty interesting. First let's have a look at the languages which are most popular in the freelance projects. The picture below shows the languages, the supply of programmers (the blue bar) and the demand in projects (the red bar).

As it seems, here in Germany there are only two serious languages: C/C++ and Java. Well, ok, Visual Basic and C# are sough after rather strongly (red bars), but there seems to be too little supply. Is that the fear of a vendor lock-in or is it just because Microsoft is considered evil that the programmers don't like .NET? The same case of too little supply for PHP, but here I must mention that the hourly rates for PHP tend to be rather low - PHP still considered a hacker language?

And now look at the last but one language with a longwinded German name I won't retype here (too lazy). In fact it's not a language of its own, but rather denotes "all the other ones in there", which includes everything fancy (or just plain old). You see there is too much supply, the IT managers seem to be more conservative than programmers, no surprise here.

Which leaves us with C/C++ and Java. Java is unmistakeably the 500 pound gorilla here, but it's hopelessly over-supplied (blue bar)! For C/C++ the situation isn't so dramatic, and I'm glad I specialize in C++!

The proposed course of action here: go away from Java (or well, from everything else for that matter) and start on .NET!

Now the overview of technologies in the freelancer projects:

Software development comes first (still a little place for more work - red bar!), then system management (plus "service and support"), however the suply here is much too big (blue bar)! It's just as bad as for SAP programming - in the past the eternal cash cow with ridiculously high hourly wages, now it's a real "problem child" - the market seems to be breaking down. Banking crisis anyone? For Web development and "graphics, content and media" there's much too much demand, just like in the PHP case above. Then the ominous field of "IT consulting", where I don't have any idea what it is, sorry, no comments there :-/. One interesting field is "Executive consulting" with so much demand and so little supply, maybe everyone is just too shy to position theirself in that niche?

The proposed course of action here
: either stay with software development or move into "Executive consulting"!

Having said that: Merry Christmas you all!

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Even more new C++ features!

Hi everybody! As I had a look on the new C++ proposal the last time , I found many small interesting things apart form the big, important features. But this was only a first look. Recently I had another look there (and at the C++0x FAQ* by Bjarne Stroustrup as well) and discovered even more interesting crittures. So what did I miss?

1. Some Syntax

First of all the new function definition syntax! Now I can write something like*:

  using PF [](double) -> void;
along the lines of lambda function definition! Well, that's definitely a treat, what a relief from

  typedef void (*PF) (double);

To be honest, I don't know if I've got the last one right, I have always to look thes syntax up or copy and paste from my other code! The [] notation can be generally used to say to the compiler that "the function type will be specified later"! Thusly we can write the following when usign embedded type like List::Link

  [] List::erase(Link* l) -> Link* { ... } ;
We postpone the return type definition utill we have entered the scope of List, and thus no scope specifier is needed!

I liked this notation (it makes the code look a little Groovy-like), but alas, it seems that not everyone does so, as the related "auto arrow" notation proposal was rejected recently**! What is auto-arrow? Look at that***:

  auto f() -> int;
typedef auto PF() -> int;
the first one is a function from void to int, and the second one is a function type definition for the same signature. Looks good enough, but consider this one:

  auto *pf(auto *p() -> int) -> auto *()->int;
I don't even want to discuss what it means, if you are curious look it up in ***! So after that proposal was justly rejected, I'm a little afraid of the fate of the [] notation - is it the next one to be scrutinized? I hope not!

2. Initalization and initializers

I though I've understood the new initalizer notation, but I was surprized how ubiquitous it became! At first I though it would be only used in assignment like

  vector<int> xs = {1, 2, 3 };
Not so, nowadays you can use it (i.e. the new {} notation) everywhere, even instead of classic parentheses!

  X x{a};
f({a}); // initializes a temporary
X* p = new X{a};
This all does look pretty strange to me, and to be honest I don't like it that much, but on the other side you can use it to avoid verbosity with pretty good results:

  map1.insert({a, b}); // sic!
The other improvement with initialization is that we can initialize the string and integer class members directly in the definition of the class!

  class X
int a = 7;
string s{"abcd"}; // new syntax!
I can only say AT LAST and amen!!!

Belonging to the "initialization" block of features, we must mention the access to the inherited constructors (in addition to the also new feature of delegating constructors, i.e. constructors which can be invoked of another constructors of the same class):

  class A { public: A(){} };
class B : public A
using A::A; // imports all the A's constructors into current scope!
  // now this is possible:
B b;
At this place I'd like to mention another related feature: disallowing copy and assignment operators. You can write for example:

  X& operator= (const& X) = delete;
to disallow it! Well, if I consider that Google even has a macro exaclty for that reason (DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(), see here) and that I used an UML tool to generate the private version of it for my every class I think that the default-generating them was a bad language design idea! If we want a copy semantics we'd better tell the compiler so! Hindsight is 20/20.

3. Threading etc.

Of course thread, mutex, condition variables and atomics are there as basic support (as expected). On the higher level we have futures and a packaged_task class, which wraps features for simpler usage. Moreover, Bjarne does promise that an async task launcher (logically named async) will be included in C++0x as well. Then we could launch tasks simply like that:
  auto f1{async(funcX(100))};
auto f2{async(funcX(200))};
  return f1.get() + f2.get(); // waits on both futures
If he's right it would be very nice!

As GC is connected to multithreading in an intimate way (at least in my eyes, sholud blog about it some time soon!), I must state here that the GC is still missing!

But not entirely, we've got some minimal support for third party garbage collectors in there ( Pointer safety). It defines what a "safely drived" (i.e reacheable) or an "disgused" pointer is ( Safely-derived pointers) and lets the programmer specify where such pointers can/cannot be found with declare_reachable()/declare_no_pointers() functions.

One thing that struck me however in the threading library classes is the flexibility of interfaces. Take the std::thread's constructor for example. You can use it like that ****:
  void hello_func() { ... }
// say hello
std::thread t{hello_func};
or like that, using a functor:
  class Greeting
explicit Greeting(std::string const& message) { ... }
void operator()() const { ... }
void greet(std::string const& message) const { ... }
// say goodbye
std::thread t(Greeting("goodbye"));
or currying the thread function with std::bind:
  void greeting_func(std::string const& message) { ... }
std::thread t(std::bind(greeting_func, "hi!"));
or without std::bind:
  std::thread t(greeting_func, "hi!");
or without std::bind and with more arguments:
  void write_sum(int x, int y){ ... }
std::thread t(write_sum, 123, 456);
or using the member function pointer
  Greeting x;
std::thread t(&Greeting::greet, &x, "greet");

// or by a smart pointer
std::shared_ptr<Greeting> ptr(new Greeting);
std::thread t1(&Greeting::greet, ptr, "hello");

// or by reference
std::thread t2(std::ref(x));

// or directly!
std::thread t2(x);
See, you don't need to worry about the initalization, the new constructs will just take anything you throw at it!

4. Miscellanea

First the variadic templates. What a name for templates with viariable number of arguments! I guess it's an interpolation of the "dyadic" concept which just means "of two arguments" :-). But seriously, we can writhe things like
  template<typename Head, typename... Tail>
doing recursion and typematching like in Clojure or Haskell ;-) Well a kind of, but it looks like that at least. Look at the n-tuple definition using variadic templates in Bjarne's FAQ*.

Further, the new and improved enums (which are class based now) can be now forward defined ! But I'm doing this all the time with C++ Visual Studio 2005! Ouch...

No for the geeky ones: we have user defined literals! You can define new literal types using the following new operator type: operator""() (plus constexpr!), for example

  "abc"s; // s: string literal
2i; // i: imaginary literal
For details have a look at Bjarne's FAQ*. NIce feature, but will I use it? It is readable for the maintainer? We'll see.

The next 2 features look to me as if they came straight from Python. First the raw strings:

  string s = R"[ahjh/?=(%/$§%§%\w\\w///]";
Why not just R"..."? Dunno. Next the foreach variant of the old for() loop.Together with initilizers we can now have some Python feeling in C++:

  vector<string> xs = {"aba", "bab", "aab" };
for(auto x:xs) cout << x; // x:xs looks even a little Haskell-like ;-))

So there are many new things, some of them making C++ look like entirely another language. No I wonder - will the C++ programmers use it, or will they stuck to the old, but known evil (like the old function definition syntax)?


*Bjarne's "C++0x - the next ISO C++ standard",

** Danny Kalev: "The Rejection of the Unified Function Syntax Proposal",

*** Daveed Vandevoorde: "The Syntax of auto Declarations",

**** for completness' sake, the examples are partially taken from: