The rise of Python, Ruby and now Groovy with their counterparts in the .Net , JVM world of IronPython, IronRuby and JPython, Jruby is a slow yet steady revolution in the programming paradigm for the computing world.
Since the early days of Smalltalk, which probably was about 3 decades ahead of its time, a slew of languages have adopted the tenets of a programming platform that is based on:
- Object Oriented Programming and specifically single inheritance structure
- Memory Management through garbage control
- The Virtual Memory under the control of the programming platform
- Bytecode based compilation that targets the specific OS platform through an Object Engine
- A Mature Collection Class Hierarchy
- Frameworks and Patterns as in MVC, Design Patterns in general
- Basic Metaprogramming
This adaptation to the evolving world of programming, includes the most prevalent platforms of Java and .Net. The old but newly visible languages of Python , Ruby and now Groovy are propogating additional features integrated of:
- Dynamic Typing
- More deeper metaprogramming
- No inherent limits or constraints in programming constructs as in interfaces, finalized base classes
And many other syntactical or conceptual adaptations from the past. They have also effected a enhanced integration of regular expresssion, string manipulation and functions/ features that are invoked on plain strings.
To regress and quickly define Dynamic Typing: The unspecified datatype of variables at compile time that is discovered at runtime and assigned as a pointer to the specific data in memory. This implies that inherently there is no allocation of memory space for the variable at compile time or runtime, it is just a pointer. At runtime it is assigned as the pointer to the address of the returned object/ data instance, potentially allowing to change its type through as many assignment statements that may occur in its lifetime/scope. Thereby within a method the same variable can be of totally different datatype and the method can also end up returning any type without restrictions binding its return type. Commonly referred to as “duck typing” or “loosely typed” it is certainly apt to call it dynamic typed.
Closures, from the lambda’s of the Lisp days are a very powerful construct, not so successfully modelled as inner classes in Java but now widely adopted in the dynamic languages is akin to the anonymous functions or the delegates in the .Net world but a lot more capable. The simplest application of closures in the iterations of collections for plain for-each, select, collect, inject, reject capabilities are to be experienced first hand than just read about as a definition. Refer Groovy iterations: http://hanuska.blogspot.com/2008/12/easy-groovy-iteration.html
Metaprogramming, through introspection as from a java.lang.reflect to deeper more powerful method interception, delegates or expando’s , have enabled a raft of capability that is probably the underlying strength in the hands of the experienced and weakness when used by inexperienced hands. From Groovy’s , Ruby’s and Smalltalk’s metaprogramming capability are an ascending order of capability that is to be experienced to be deeply imbued. http://www.slideshare.net/hominhchuc/groovy-meta-programming-slides-presentation ; http://pharobyexample.org/ go to the Advanced Smalltalk section.
To the purpose of the article, growth and eventual widespread use of dynamic typed languages, in what can be considered as the mass or popular realm of the programming world. Google in its adoption of python in the early days and ruby on rails adoption by the hordes of small to medium size business as well as Sun, IBM, MSer’s and at ThoughtWorks in its various avatars have baselined the significant impact they have in the business agility and ability to surmount some of the barriers the conventional paradigm offers.
This article is not a diatribe or argument over an oft heard pro’s and cons of typing (  and  below) but to emphasize the changing nature of technology development, evolving population of programmers and their ability that will probably see the veritable need of a gradual shift from the imposed restrictions of the current world.
In the decade past it was perhaps the norm to have a 100+ member team to build the next generation product or application that is now fast shrinking to orders of 10 or just a little more for just the core development and unit testing task. This in turn demands higher efficiency from each of the team members in turning around more function points per day than before, higher agility and need to turnaround intial product and its maintenance projects in quicker time.
The dynamic typing by itself is an argument that only the developer himself (or the dev team) can feel and argue one way or the other effectively for his perception of its efficiency . But it has led the current revolution through the space of frameworks for the web application development world that makes its case presentation near indisputable. Ruby on Rails, Django in Python, Grails from Groovy and ofcourse Springs integration of dynamic languages in its fold and last not the least potent of the rising stars in Seaside from Smalltalk shall be defining the need for enterprise architects and CTO’s to take a deep look through the potential benefits they shall have in adopting these languages, one or more, in the roadmap of their respective enterprises. Comprehensive integration through Web Services/ SOA and other native connections, also helps the cause for multiple systems to co-exist, properly implemented with least pain.
Another major force that should evolve is the changing world of project management with Agility as the key word within even the major long term projects. Break up projects into smaller containable phases and have them driven with all the technical tenets of Extreme Programming. The Unit test driven development paradigm demands higher rigor from the team but at the same begets the reasons to drop the verbose syntax of typed world for the easier , flexible and inherently powerful dynamic world.
It is perhaps not too late for nearly all technology companies to wake up to the call for the change to consider multiple paradigms to exist within the arsenal they deploy for product developments. There is no need to be totalitarian and drive the entire development through the proverbial “ square peg does not fit a round hole” syndrome. It is essential for the enterprise architecture teams, the technology heads ( The CTOs or the tech teams) to infuse the spirit of inclusion of well tested dynamic languages into their development toolset. The toolchain required will need to be rigorously researched and fitment assessed before acceptance, is perhaps essential to mitigate the risks of cowboy programming of the yore.
The newer breed of frameworks of RubyOnRails, Grails from Groovy, Seaside from Smalltalk and the raft of others do inspire a sense of confidence of the stable place in the enterprise toolset for the dynamic programming platforms. Couple this with the rise of base platform and IDE support for Ruby/ JRuby, Groovy , Python and now Pharo Smalltalk/ GnuSmalltalk with a more than minimal required support for an enterprise team support systems, the transition or adoption curve can be easier ( perhaps not easy even now for free smalltalk for more reasons, but seems like now on a path to change that too in very near future)
The question whether it is Smalltalk, Python, Ruby , Newspeak, Groovy or any other can be left to the totality of requirement demands, the available talent pool and the future maintainability. But to move dynamic should not be anymore left to lowest denominator of available capability of developers.
What I would recommend for the uninitiated is to dip through the following links and make up their mind on the way forward.
If you are not averse to the break from anything of the past in files, syntax and totally new paradigm that has influenced the world of programming even till now:
Quiet dated but very nice discussion list and especially note from Jim S. in the middle:
Oliver Steele: Chief Architect Lazlo ( then.. )
For the academically inclined a lot of theoretical discussions and references: