On 03/23/2011 10:03 AM, Taylor, Kaia wrote:

I read that you want a win desktop application, as opposed to a device driver, for instance. I am guessing that code efficiency is lower down on the list than coding time. So I see it as a matter of balancing how quickly you want that desktop app written, versus how much ooh and aah you want for jumping right into C/C++.

What if you:

1. write your desktop app in visual basic.

This may take you >5 times less time to write, based on my own VB vs. C++ learning experiences. I know it's something like "minus 2,322 geek cred points" for admitting you wrote something in visual basic. But in exchange, you get your app out and tested and improved and the end product will be better 6 months from now.

2. start learning C/C++ on the side, by working on porting that app.  First port the parts of the app which could use optimization.

3. along with learning coding in the next 10 years, keep up on improvements automated code optimizers, emulators, and porting tools.  To me, using these tools means that I can get the job done more quickly without necessarily going through the programming learning curve that I'd have needed 10 years ago.

I have used this approach on several occasions, but it really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Different languages have different strengths and weaknesses. I will give you my list of languages, and where I see each being the better choice.

C/C++ -

This one is the big kahuna ain't it. Its fast, secure, and produces real applications. But its also not portable nor scalable. You write programs in C/C++ for a platform, to do a job. You want a Windows driver, C is your man. You want a Windows desktop application that is more than a trival front end, C++ is your friend. You want these things to still be around in 10 years, yep, C/C++ can't be beat. So what's the cost? Subjective to platform changes (Window/Linux/Mac all generally require code changes unless your program is pretty trivial, and don't even think about taking those programs mobile)

HTML/Perl/PHP/DJango/Rails/JSP

My favorites in this list are plain old HTML, PHP and Rails. Not every page needs to be dynamic, sometimes it more important to just get the information out. Simplicity can be quite elegant. When you do need more dynamic information (a blog site for example, or a site that customizes its content by the user), PHP can't be beat. But PHP can also be a security nightmare. Also, the level of complexity and features do not scale well in PHP. Yes some people have written some really big stuff in PHP, but they really shouldn't have. To up the ante yet another step, I like (Ruby on) Rails. This has moved out of the fancy webpage and into the application that uses HTTP as its I/O. PHP is still a webpage, Rails is a program. Until Rails 3.0 proves itself, I am still weary of its ability to scale though. For truly enterprise class web sites applications, you can't beat JSP (i.e. Java).

Python/Ruby/Perl/VB/Mono/Java/Flex

C and C++ is some pretty heavy lifting, and the second category produces great cloud and intranet applications, but where do you go if you need something in between. Something that runs locally not via the web, but is more flexible than C/C++. Every item (except for actual Visual Basic, but is fixed by using Mono) is cross platform. Again, I take a tiered approach to which I like. Python is a procedural language that is masquerading as a object oriented one (for all you python fanboys out there, I am right, and if you don't understand why, maybe you need to have a better understanding of security mechanisms in object orientation). I have some real security concerns about python, due to this trickery. However, it is very handy, and useful language for writing some killer scripts and command line utilities. In this area, Python does a brilliant job at replacing Perl. When I am looking for something that adheres better to object oriented concepts, and has better encapsulation, I move up to Ruby. Python and Ruby also allow you to produce an application that contains multiple faces, such as web and desktop, on Windows, Mac and Linux. Both languages also have decent interactive consoles that allow for realistic RAD development (as opposed to the Waterfall used in Java and C/C++). However, Ruby's better encapsulation allows for much better and more flexible features to be extended later. Plus, nobody does ActiveRecord like Ruby, and everyone should. Databases, x500 directories, file systems, all use a simple and uniform interface, Ruby is really a step up. Both Python (via DJango) and Ruby (via Rails) allows you to reuse your desktop objects in creating web based services. So, a modern day equivalent to the old Client/Server model would have a web server providing a part of your functionality and a independent desktop application. Ruby is the best in the business in this model. Flex can also be looked at here, but Adobe just does not seem to be getting the kind of traction, and really does not do as well as Ruby/Python on the cross platform front (anyone else give up on running the Air version of Pandora Radio... I rest my point)

Middleware

Databases are old fashion, but a necessity. If you really want to add to your bag of tricks, look into some of the many no-sql databases. I have looked at CouchDB, and liked it, and know many people that swear by it. I personally like MongoDB. Python, C/C++, Ruby, Java, all have object class library that allows MongoDB to blend into your application far more seamlessly than I thin CouchDB does. At work, I deal with another big, big nosql database call MarkLogic. The key to ML is learning xquery and xpath, as well as xml and xslt.

Front Ends

Lots have tried, none has become dominant. If you are writing for Windows, and are OK with limiting your market that way, the Windows API is well documented and fairly simple to use. Windows and Mac are both able to use the GTK (i.e. Gnome) or QT (i.e. Kde) windowing kits. But both are difficult to deploy on Windows for the average user. Java has its own windowing kit, and nobody, not even Oracle really likes the damn thing. You may want to look into one of the independent 3rd party windowing kits. Most of them are simply a library that needs installed. In the Windows environment, this library can be included with your install. A simple search and you can look at hundreds of these, but I would start with wxWindows, Fox, SDL, and FLTK.

I hope that my rundown was not too confusing. I am sure many on this list will agree and disagree with much of what I said. Other will have their opinions, some may rank the products in a different way. So, your mileage may vary.

Good Luck
Kevin Fries