wpl@burdvax.UUCP (William P Loftus) (02/05/86)
I am looking for a good reference that will tell me what percent of
the programs written are in each programming language.
I have heard that 75% of all programs are written in COBOL, 24% are
written in FORTRAN, and 1% are written in other languages, but
I would like a reference.
Thanks,
--
/
/ /======/ Ronin ..!burdvax!wpl
======= / /
/ / / /======/
====== / /
/ /======/
/taylor@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Jem Taylor) (02/10/86)
Also interesting, but even harder to discover, would be the source-langauge of programs , in proportions of CPU time used and or images executed . . . languages like BLISS and BCPL which are most used in OS's would figure higher in such an ordering, I guess.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (02/21/86)
> I am looking for a good reference that will tell me what percent of > the programs written are in each programming language. > > I have heard that 75% of all programs are written in COBOL, 24% are > written in FORTRAN, and 1% are written in other languages, but > I would like a reference. There are too many variables to give anything that even approximates an answer. For example, Do you want to know a) The percentage of programs ever written, or b) The percentage of programs written for computers still in use, or c) The percentage of programs still being used themselves, or d) The percentage of programs still being maintained, or e) The percentage of programs currently being written? Do you count copies on different systems individually? Or is the VAX/Unix 4.2 C compiler on this system not count if you've already counted it on another VAX? Do you count one, two, or three different programs for "lint" running on VAX, PDP/11, and Motorola 68000? Do you count different versions as the same program? Is Unix 4.2 and System V the same program? What about the two versions of PCC we use here: one generates VAX code, one generates NS32000 code? Do you count a program that is run once and then discarded to be the same as a program like "ls" that is run many times a day? Do you count a shell script as a program? Getting even more esoteric: do you count anything programmable, or is there some specific definition of a "program" that you're thinking of? Does the microcode inside a 68000 count as a program? Or maybe it counts as a hundred programs, one for each instruction? What about the cooking instructions on my microwave oven? Getting serious again... the figures that were suggested above are probably based on "customer-developed mainframe applications" -- that is, the programs that run on big IBM/Honeywell/CDC/etc computers; programs that were written by programmers at the computer site; programs whose results are supposed to benefit non-computer people. That estimate was probably made 15 years ago or more; there's no way that anyone could make any sort of rational estimate now. By the time you specify enough parameters to make it measurable, the result would be meaningless. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (02/22/86)
> Also interesting, but even harder to discover, would be the source-langauge > of programs , in proportions of CPU time used and or images executed . . . > languages like BLISS and BCPL which are most used in OS's would figure higher > in such an ordering, I guess. My money's on MCS-48(R) assembler. [Okay, I'll explain. MCS-48 is Intel's low-end microcontroller line. You'll find one in just about every keyboard made in the last few years, as well as in things like microwave ovens, washing machines, intelligent thermostats, stereo equipment, televisions, and just about any place else that low-cost computer control is desirable. There are zillions of them out there...] -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
x@mit-prep.ARPA (Dean Elsner) (02/27/86)
Doug@terak.UUCP was correct that you can't account programming languages sensibly for a networked environment. A useful metric is "what % of bodies are programming in a XXX environment, as distinct from a YYY environment". I regret to report that names like COBOL JCL BAL RPG PL/1(which is better than the others by my reconning) are far more common in corporate DP than eg ForTran C Pascal Modula2 Simula Lisp. Interestingly, almost as many corporate scriveners do it in (many mutually incompatible varieties of) BASIC as in COBOL in my town (Perth Western Australia) but they usually do it on smaller boxes. These rankings were derived from fresh chicken entrails propitiously read through dark glass under a full moon. -- x@prep.ai.mit.edu Disclaimer: I am not me.
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (02/28/86)
In article <6@mit-prep.ARPA>, x@mit-prep.ARPA (Dean Elsner) writes: > Interestingly, almost as many corporate scriveners do it in > [..] BASIC as in COBOL in my town [..] > but they usually do it on smaller boxes. Is that so they can't be caught at it? In public, or in private? Peter Ladkin
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/03/86)
> A useful metric is "what % of bodies > are programming in a XXX environment, as distinct from a YYY environment". It'd be nearly impossible to determine exact numbers; some of the sub-industries are difficult to quantify. For non-professional programmers, I'd guess BASIC. For the really huge employers (GM, TRW, government, etc.), probably the biggest single group is CICS Command Level/COBOL. [For those unfamiliar, the base language is COBOL, but the bulk of the program consists of calls to CICS Command interface routines.] Add in the other IBM COBOL programmers, and you've probably got a majority. And there's still a lot of FORTRAN in the scientific community. PL/I was stillborn, and RPG's limited range of applicability prevented it from becoming really popular with the big data centers. Assembler is used only in the Systems Programming departments. For the smaller employers, it depends on the kind of programming. For ordinary business-type stuff, it's virtually all COBOL and RPG. The RPG contingent is slowly dying off; this is primarily because these smaller businesses can now afford computers that are capable of much more complex jobs than one can express in RPG. An almost invisible horde of smaller companies employ programmers to write programs for embedded microprocessors. How many companies, how many programmers, how many programs, it's hard to tell. Most of this work is in assembler (when you've only got 2K of program storage, you don't mess around). With the advent of larger control stores, some shops are experimenting with C and FORTH. From what I've heard, the C projects have had mixed results, and the FORTH projects have usually been failures. A small number of programmers are employed developing microcode for bit-slice machines. This is virtually all in assembler. And a number of smaller employers develop software specifically. I include in this both software houses and (for example) Tektronix's development of the UTek operating system. Here again, it's hard to tell how many companies, how many programmers, and how many programs. C and assembler are the most common languages, with C usually being used on applications intended for Unix boxes and IBM-PCs. Then there are the one-man software developers. It's anyone's guess how many people consider themselves to be in this category. Again, C and assembler predominate, with C again being used on applications targeted to Unix boxes and IBM-PCs. Very few of these programmers are able to support themselves through these efforts, so there's some question as to how many truly "professional" programmers there are in this group. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug