Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th May 2009 09:43 UTC
General Development Microsoft has come one step closer to delivering a parallel programming language to developers. On May 8, Microsoft made Axum, the company's foray into parallel programming, available on its MSDN DevLabs portal. Axum is a .NET language for building parallel applications. According to a Microsoft description, Axum "is a language that builds upon the architecture of the Web and principles of isolation, actors and message-passing to increase application safety, responsiveness, scalability and developer productivity."
Thread beginning with comment 363594
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oh no not another one
by mounty on Thu 14th May 2009 10:13 UTC
mounty
Member since:
2005-12-12

Axum, F, C# ... when will Microsoft get over their NIH mindset and learn to cooperate ?

The world does not need more programming languages. The tower of Babel has already been built.

Reply Score: 1

RE: oh no not another one
by drstorm on Thu 14th May 2009 10:46 in reply to "oh no not another one"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

I disagree. Choice is always a good thing.

For me C# is the most beautiful language out there. It would be a shame if Microsoft just went along with Java. (I like Java less than C#, but I still like it. I really do not like the Java framework and runtime, though.)
Of course, that's just my opinion, but the point is, if it's out there someone will like it and use it. That's why Microsoft should continue developing its own technologies. Those technologies people like will be adopted even outside of MS ecosystem. Remember Mono? ;)

If Axum encapsulate the concurrency principals in an elegant, easy to understand and productive manner, the ideas will jump over to other languages over time. Thus, everyone will benefit from it.
If it fails, only Microsoft loses.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: oh no not another one
by Brendan on Sun 17th May 2009 05:38 in reply to "RE: oh no not another one"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I disagree. Choice is always a good thing.


Hehe - "many eyes make bugs shallow" (but only if those eyes aren't glazed over in a haze of utter confusion).

Let's invent 1 million languages, so that the chance of one programmer being able to maintain code written by another programmer is almost zero.

If choice is a good thing, then let's also invent 1 million different web standards, 1 million different alternatives to TCP/IP, 1 million different keyboard layouts and 1 million different "optic disk" formats.

-Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: oh no not another one
by Laurence on Thu 14th May 2009 10:55 in reply to "oh no not another one"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

While I do see your point, I also don't see the harm either.
As this language is a .net language, one would assume that it compiles to byte code like C# does. so there's no additional installs / libraries needed for the customers machin thus the only person affected by the differences would be teh developer which choses which language to develop in.

as for the examples given, I can't speak for F, but C# had a definite perpose that stands out enough to warrent it's own language. If anything, I see Visual Basic.net as the pointless addition. If I wanted to enter that much syntax then I'd code in C++. But that's just me personally - others might sware by VB.net.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: oh no not another one
by tuttle on Thu 14th May 2009 12:48 in reply to "oh no not another one"
tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

I disagree! The world does need new programming languages to deal with massively parallel systems.

But microsoft apparently does not have what it takes to provide these languages. Except for haskell, which is developed by simon peyton jones at microsoft research.

But apparently there is some kind of internal firewall that prevents stuff that is being developed in microsoft research to be used productively... :-(

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: oh no not another one
by google_ninja on Thu 14th May 2009 14:41 in reply to "RE: oh no not another one"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Sorry for responding to each of your posts with disagreements like this, but this is the sort of thing I love to talk about ;-)

But microsoft apparently does not have what it takes to provide these languages. Except for haskell, which is developed by simon peyton jones at microsoft research.


Funny, I consider haskell to be a pretty academic language. I would say Erlang is the first language that is both appropriate for massive concurrence, and also practical.

But apparently there is some kind of internal firewall that prevents stuff that is being developed in microsoft research to be used productively... :-(


F# came from MSR, and it is going to ship with the next version of visual studio. Basically OCaml for the CLR.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: oh no not another one
by TBPrince on Thu 14th May 2009 14:37 in reply to "oh no not another one"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

What a biased view!

One of the greatest things about .NET is language independency.

Whatever language you like to use, it will compile into MSIL and work seamlessly with stuff from other people. That's a terrific improvement, expecially in eco-systems where people might come from different experiences and workplaces.

So I can happen to prefer VB.NET and be able to use that without:

1) any need to know what others will use to interface with my code;

2) consider that using an old-style language like VB could affect my performance.

Multiply this by all languages we have and think if that's not useful. And if you think that letting developers use whatever language they prefer is a bad thing, consider how productive you could be using your language of choice when compared to forcing people to uniform into one language only.

Plus, compiling from different sources to MSIL is great for OSS and distributed developers.

And about Axum: ask people developing games if they wouldn't worship anyone providing an easy way to build concurrent code...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: oh no not another one
by kaiwai on Fri 15th May 2009 04:50 in reply to "oh no not another one"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Axum, F, C# ... when will Microsoft get over their NIH mindset and learn to cooperate ?

The world does not need more programming languages. The tower of Babel has already been built.


Why? I think it is wonderful and I hope that maybe Microsoft will relinquish any claims of royalties on .NET implementations - I can understand the need for defensive patents but it would be great if Microsoft worked with the open source community thus leaving the 'value' being derived not from the framework but the implementation of developer tools which make it easier to implement.

Reply Parent Score: 2