TIOBE December 2015 - D rose 5 positions

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 10:13:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 04:24:05 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> How is it "political?"  My prediction is entirely geared 
>> around hardware and software realities.
>
> No, businesses don't want P2P, client-server is the ultimate 
> dongle...

I don't think businesses care what technical architecture they're 
using.  Many have stayed away from the cloud, because they're 
understandably worried about putting their confidential data on 
somebody else's servers.

Not sure exactly what you mean by "ultimate dongle," but if you 
mean it's just plug-and-play, I'd say it's far away from that, 
though certainly better in that regard than maintaining your own 
software in-house.

>> _are_ very useful.  Having an online map with my GPS location 
>> with me at all times, supplemented with photos and other info 
>> about all the local restaurants and stores nearby is a killer 
>> app.  Perhaps you have not tried Google Maps, but it is really 
>> worth the price of a smartphone, not to mention the camera and 
>> all the other stuff you get.
>
> Feature phones have camera, video, facebookapp, opera mini, 
> bluetooth, p2p filesharing over bluetooth...

They may have some of those, but they're not very usable on a 
tiny, low-res screen.

> Yes, maps are nice, but I only need it once every 2 months, so 
> what I do is print one out. I grew up in Oslo, so I know the 
> areas. In fact tourists frequently ask for direction still and 
> norwegians too, whether they have flat battery or not. It is 
> easier to do planning on a big paper map too. Google map lacks 
> accuracy, paths, roadblocks/snow coditions...

I've used it in a couple different countries, it's surpringly 
good.  Not 100% accurate, but no map is.

> Feature phones will die when smartphones become 
> small/robust/long battery life.

They're already dying now, feature phone sales have been dropping 
for years, as smartphones take over that market:

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2996817

>>> That is not true for the web. I was underimpressed with the 
>>> web when it was introduced. Today I am impressed. It is 
>>> dominating the desktop severely.
>>
>> What changed?
>
> Webapps are displacing desktop apps.

So nothing important changed about the web technology itself, 
you're just impressed by its success?

>> Heh, I think micropayments will be the killer business model 
>> for p2p. :) I wonder if it can ever really be done for the 
>> web, considering all the security issues in the web stack.  
>> That's another place where the complexity of the web stack 
>> kills it, all the security holes that pop up.
>
> The problem is getting people to sign up for it.

Nah, that's no problem at all, as lots of people would like to 
use it.  The problem is making it really easy to use and secure, 
like most new tech.

>> Has the web fixed all its vulnerabilities?  Of course not, so 
>> that's hardly a deal-breaker.  p2p would be easier to secure.
>
> ?

I guess you're referring to the "easier to secure" bit?  If 
you're simply sending structured messages with actual user-viewed 
data back and forth over p2p, that's much easier to secure than a 
remotely-executed programming language (javascript) and several 
other formatting languages thrown in 
(HTML/CSS/XML/dumb-web-API-of-the-day), as the web stack 
undertakes.

P2p is not inherently easier than client-server, only if done 
simply, like the way I described.

>> You mention open formats several times, but none of that has 
>> anything to do with open source, which was a non-factor in the 
>> web browser's rise.
>
> Are you kidding? Mosaic was critical to the raise of the web.

The OSS Mosaic prototype was very important in spreading the idea 
in the beginning.  But it had almost no impact on the subsequent 
_rise_ through regular users, which all happened when they left 
university to form Netscape.  If they hadn't built a company to 
drive it, it would have gone nowhere, just as we see many OSS 
projects doing today.

>> wrong with that in principle, in fact, the web would've likely 
>> gone nowhere if Netscape hadn't formed and driven it.
>
> I disagree.
>
> But something like Flash would have been in a stronger position.

No, you'd still have been going online through proprietary 
networks like Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL, or The Microsoft Network: 
:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up#The_Microsoft_Network

There would have been no web and no Flash on top of it without 
Netscape.