Ask Slashdot: Choosing a Web Language That's Long-Lived, and Not Too Buzzy? 536
adelayde (185757) writes "In my day job, I work on a web based service with a lot of legacy code written in that older (and some may say venerable) web-scripting language, Perl. Although we use Modern Perl extensions such as Moose, the language just seems to be ossifying and we're wanting to move to a more up-to-date and used language for web applications, or even an entire framework, to do new development. We're still planning to support the legacy code for a number of years to come; that's unavoidable. This is a fairly big project and it's mission critical to the business. The thing we're afraid of is jumping onto something that is too new and too buzzy as we'd like to make a technology decision that would be good at least for the next five years, if not more, and today's rising star could quite easily be in tomorrow's dustbin. What language and/or framework would you recommend we adopt?"
Perl (Score:5, Interesting)
Perl 5 pretty much satisfies everything you're looking for. What's the problem with Perl again?
Re:Perl (Score:5, Funny)
/&%#%^&*)^ADVkjR$%^$E)!HJLGAZ^&R%\jkghlk/^
Random garbage or valid perl?
Re:Perl (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perl (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is forced to program that way in Perl. It can be fun and may or may not look cool on a t-shirt but no one recommends that as a way of doing it. Just because there's more than one way to do it doesn't mean you should choose the worst way.
And to the submitter, I agree with the OP.
Re:Perl (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is forced to program that way in Perl.
Mobody is forced to write Perl that way, but many people are forced to read that kind of Perl.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the crux of the issue. A good language shouldn't be one that lets you code cleanly - it should do its very best to make sure you CAN'T code sloppily.
Re:Perl (Score:5, Insightful)
A good language ... should do its very best to make sure you CAN'T code sloppily.
Exactly, just like a good spoken language should make sure you CAN'T use profanity.
...But then, what about when profanity is appropriate? What if you need an emphasis that is so fucking strong that simply changing the tone of voice doesn't suffice? What if your whole damned speech is in reference to something condemned by a deity, or referring to Mohammed the thief, who assumed the name of the prophet?
The point of any language is to express. For programming languages, the idea is to express instructions for two different processing styles simultaneously: the deterministic and predetermined understanding of the parser, and the non-deterministic and subjective understanding of colleagues. Similarly, spoken languages must account for the subjective understandings of every listener, some of which may have very different rules regarding obscenity.
There is much more to coding "cleanly" than mere syntax. Structure is equally important, and it must change as the system design demands. If the rules of a language are too strict, then the whole program starts to look the same, and it's more difficult for future interpreters to understand the intent of the program.
There is an art to writing clean code, just as there's an art to writing eloquent language. Strict rules don't always improve that art.
Re: Perl (Score:4, Insightful)
That you think C aids in expressiveness over Perl, Python, Ruby, awk, Go, Swift, Rust, D, C#, Scala, Clojure, or even C++ shows you're talking out the wrong orifice
I expect we're using the word "expressive" differently.
C is a lot of things, but it is not terribly expressive or high level.
Definitely not high level.
C lacks concise and easy to use language syntax to express ideas, but almost any idea that can be imagined can be expressed (implemented) in C. That is what I meant by expressive.
Higher level languages provide all sorts of direct language support for ideas that are not directly present in lower level languages, but all high level lanagauges ultimately compile down to machine code, which can be represented by assembler. Therefore, nothing that can be expressed in any language can't be expressed in assembler. Therefore assembler is maximally expressive. Anything else is just a subset of what you can do with assembler.
However there is PLENTY you can do in assembler, that you can't do in any other language, and C, is the lowest level language above assembler, and while there are some things that can be done in assembler that can't be done in C, there's not a lot that can be done in a higher level language than C that can't be done in C.
Not easily. Not concisely. And not safely... because if you implement a reference counting garbage collector in C to do your memory management (and you can) there is nothing in C stopping you from directly manipulating the GC state to achieve all kinds of stuff you can't do in the higher level language ...and should probably never do!! -- but this isn't about *should* -- its about *can*.
Re: Perl (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, which is why I get really annoyed with Python bigots. My main exposures to python have been trash piles like Anaconda and cowboy crap that is seven layers of libraries to implement and process check that has such poor syntax that it can't even fail, no matter how screwed the process.
I've seen incomprehensible junk written in tcl, bash, java, javascript, c, c++, visual basic, fortran, cobol, basic and assembler, most often written by "experienced" coders who think comments and structure are anathema
Isn't it obvious? (Score:3)
Consider the Carmack transform in C. Can you work out what it's there to approximate instantly based on that line of code without being told? It's things like that and very complex regexes that need the implications listed while the hundreds of lines around them probably don't.
Re: (Score:2)
So your beef is with Regular Expressions?
Re: (Score:3)
Using cable1: [ioccc.org]
$./cable1 "/&%#%^&*)^ADVkjR$%^$E)\!HJLGAZ^&R%\jkghlk/^" "random garbage" "valid perl"
valid perl
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to reg exp? If so... it is you loss for not understanding reg exp.
Re: (Score:3)
And that regular expressions are as easy to understand and predict as Rob Ford is sober.
Re:Perl (Score:4, Insightful)
Regular expression are deterministic. Rob Ford, not so much.
Re:Perl (Score:5, Funny)
/&%#%^&*)^ADVkjR$%^$E)!HJLGAZ^&R%\jkghlk/^
Random garbage or valid perl?
Why can't it be both?
Perl says your garbage is just that (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it says it in it's own polite way:
$ perl -e '/&%#%^&*)^ADVkjR$%^$E)!HJLGAZ^&R%\jkghlk/^ && print "Valid? No way!"'
syntax error at -e line 1, near "^ &&"
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.
Re:Perl says your garbage is just that (Score:4, Funny)
syntax error at -e line 1, near "^ &&"
Hell, at least it made it 2/3 of the way through.
Random garbage or valid Python? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Perl (Score:5, Funny)
/&%#%^&*)^ADVkjR$%^$E)!HJLGAZ^&R%\jkghlk/^
Random garbage or valid perl?
Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
/&%#%^&*)^ADVkjR$%^$E)!HJLGAZ^&R%\jkghlk/^
Random garbage or valid perl?
Spoiler: "DRINK MORE OVALTINE!"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's too old. As far I can tell, there are exactly zero specific requirements mentioned besides it being something new but that'll stick around, and that the project is "fairly big."
My solution would be to talk to the smart friend of yours with the largest hands. The slap upside the head should solve the problem.
Hiring (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the people who know Perl well already have jobs, and aren't looking to change.
We tried hiring someone to help me offload some of my work, and one the task I've gotten behind on is updating & maintaining some Perl code.
We had one person who I felt could've jumped in, but that management didn't like (as he had previously worked here, and left). The rest were folks who we'd have to train on OO, closures, and other higher level concepts.
If this hasn't been offered as a 12-month position, maybe we could've found someone. If we had advertised it as a general programming job, and then taught someone Perl, maybe it would've been gone better for us.
With trendy languages, you at least get people willing to apply -- even if it's the case that they don't grok the language, you at least get someone you can train up.
Better yet... (Score:4, Funny)
Which editor should we use?
Re:Better yet... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Better yet... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
But... but... it's over 9000!
Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:5, Informative)
Perl may be legacy to an extent, but it's a Swiss army knife that will get any job done. I don't see it going away anytime soon.
I know it's in vogue to hate on PHP, but PHP is relatively modern, robust, and fully capable of handling enterprise tasks. It's widely adopted and there's support everywhere. Probably half of the websites and services you use every day are built on PHP, it's certainly not the worst language you could choose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you are concerned about getting in employees who know the language from school or have experience at several prior jobs, and come in at affordable rates, or have a concern about available contractors, PHP is going to give you a larger available talent pool that you can swap people in and out faster then continuing with perl or going down just about any other path where the knowledge pool will be fairly limited. There are a lot of platforms in PHP that can aid with this, providing frameworks that everyon
Re:Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, on paper it looks like you'll have a large number of viable candidates, but when you start interviewing you learn that the PHP "talent pool" is mostly just a pool.
It's just as quick to hire a real developer and train them in PHP.
Re:Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
You just have to filter out the people who list HTML as programming.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> PHP is relatively modern, robust
No it isn't
Re:Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:5, Funny)
> PHP is relatively modern, robust
No it isn't
Skillfully refuted!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
PHP is relatively modern, robust
No it isn't
Thanks for your valuable contribution.
Judging by the fact that most of Facebook is based on PHP, it sounds to me like it's pretty robust... It's also object oriented. The only drawback that I would find as a code-geek is weak typing, but that's a personal opinion, not a lacking feature.
Re: (Score:3)
PHP is relatively modern, robust
No it isn't
Thanks for your valuable contribution.
Judging by the fact that most of Facebook is based on PHP, it sounds to me like it's pretty robust... It's also object oriented. The only drawback that I would find as a code-geek is weak typing, but that's a personal opinion, not a lacking feature.
Besides that Facebook isn't. They use a proprietary solution that started with PHP, but is really something else now.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't piss on Javascript. Sure, the standard library is terrible and poor cross compatibility makes it impossible to do anything interesting in a browser without shims, but purely as a language the whole "class = function = object" idea is truly magnificent in its own way, especially with the implementation of anonymous functions and closures. The ability to override "this" as well provides many useful metaprogramming tools; just recently I used it to load an external library into its own independent global
Re: (Score:3)
Don't piss on Javascript.
There's nothing wrong with pissing on Javascript, but it's unfair to mention it in the same breath as PHP. PHP sucks across the board, but Javascript has very specific and identifiable flaws. You can think of Javascript as the living embodiment of Sturgeon's Revelation. [sealedabstract.com]
So, for example, Javascript has quite clean variable semantics (borrowed from Scheme, no less!), making it almost a functional language, but then drapes it in an unwieldy function syntax which discourages you from using it as such. Somewhere
Re:Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:5, Funny)
No it isn't.
Re:Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone cosidering PHP should read this the now infamouns "PHP is a fractal of bad design".
http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/... [eev.ee]
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone cosidering PHP should read this the now infamouns "PHP is a fractal of bad design".
http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/... [eev.ee]
Most of it applies to old, obsolete versions of PHP. That's like complaining about the 640K barrier in Microsoft's operating systems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of it applies to old, obsolete versions of PHP.
Which might be the only versions that your hosting provider offers because upgrading PHP would change the language's semantics in ways that break other subscribers' programs.
Re: (Score:2)
Fractal rant makes about six good points (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone cosidering PHP should read this the now infamouns "PHP is a fractal of bad design".
Which must be balanced with the "hardly" rebuttal [devshed.com]. For example, PHP lets a program solve the exception/warning dichotomy cleanly in about six lines of code; see the manual's page about the ErrorException class. This leaves about a half dozen legitimate complaints:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yet C is still in wide use, and is still useful for endless applications. Its bastard offspring C++ is another "fractal of bad design," but it's everywhere.
I used to make the same complaint about C++ until I seriously used it for something.
Re: (Score:2)
PHP was expressly designed to display web pages. Originally the acronym meant something like "Personal Home Pages".
Yes, it has warts, security issues and the original database services were anything but plug-compatible, but it's a great language for quick-and-dirty.
If you want something architecturally cleaner, if not necessarily more secure, there's Python.
Perl has certainly done yeoman service on the web. Its main faults are that it is infamously "write-only" and that - as in the case of sed commands - if
Re: (Score:2)
PHP was expressly designed to display web pages. Originally the acronym meant something like "Personal Home Pages".
Yes, it has warts, security issues and the original database services were anything but plug-compatible, but it's a great language for quick-and-dirty.
If you want something architecturally cleaner, if not necessarily more secure, there's Python.
Could you care to explain how a language is "architecturally cleaner" for web applications when it does not have native web-related features? Unless you consider that piling up frameworks is a better architecture because it brings more moving parts in the picture. Hopefully you are not an architect.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought PHP meant "Pretty Hopeless Privacy" due to its track record of security flaws...
Re:Perl still works, and PHP is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a pretty language but you can be reasonably certain that for the forseeable future it's going to stay. It's nowhere near as nice as Ruby on Rails or Python/Django but it does have a huge market share so there's both relatively many people who speak it and a lot of ready-to-use code, from snippets to frameworks.
The huge amount of available code is a bit of a mixed bag, though - PHP attracts a lot of entry-level coders and in many cases it shows. On the one hand you have things like Twig (a clone of Django's template engine) that are a delight to work with; on the other hand you have things like most WordPress plugins, which consist of barely-working code written by someone who thinks that "model-view-controller" involves Kate Moss staring at a gamepad. The fact that PHP makes it easy to write code that is wrong but still runs doesn't help here.
PHP has flaws. A lot of them. It's a pretty annoying language to work with. But it's not going to fade away anytime soon and that is its strength. If that makes it desirable to you then PHP is a reasonable choice. If it doesn't you might want to stay with Perl or take a look at trendier languages like Ruby, Python or JavaScript.
Re: (Score:3)
I know it's in vogue to hate on PHP,
I don't hate PHP. I just don't use it unless I have to.
but PHP is relatively modern, robust, and fully capable of handling enterprise tasks.
I'm not sure what you mean by "relatively modern". If you mean it is younger then Perl, that is true. 20 years old vs Perl's 26 years.
Both languages have evolved, adopting new ideas and adapting to new needs. They both borrow from other languages and from each other. Indeed PHP started out as a set of Perl scripts. A side effect of this was that PHP 1.0 (released in 1995) "syntax resembled that of Perl" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP).
Both are "fully
Node.js (Score:2, Interesting)
JavaScript isn't going anywhere, and is nearly required for web development in browsers... so having it on the server side just makes things that much easier. It's not particularly hard to learn... you hire people with JavaScript experience, and they can get spun up on Node.js in a week or so.
Re: (Score:2)
>JavaScript isn't going anywhere, and is nearly required for web development in browsers
I manage fine without it.
Why is it I need Javascript?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it I need Javascript?
Because you want or need to use an application that requires it. I assume you're talking generally and not asking anyone to comment on your specific situation without giving any other details about your use patterns or needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it I need Javascript?
Because you want or need to use an application that requires it. I assume you're talking generally and not asking anyone to comment on your specific situation without giving any other details about your use patterns or needs.
Let's be more specific then. What is it that Javascript does that I cannot do with an alternative language just as or more effectively? I don't dispute that you can use it and some can use it well, but I do dispute that anyone 'needs' it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Javascript executes client side. It is the interpreted language that rendering engines are being built around. You can't have scriptable interactions with low latency without something like it and it is at this point usually the best choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless it is executed on the server, ofc ;D
Re: (Score:3)
When building pages to send to the client, there's a lot of value in building DOM structures server-side. Having powerful DOM-manipulation tools is an advantage.
Plus, if you run the same language on both ends, you can start to do some really interesting things, like the Meteor framework, where the same functions exist on both sides of the fence, and work the same way.
Think of the power that exist(ed) in using .NET on both the server and IE. It was proprietary, but made huge advancements in rapid development
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree for the most part. There are a lot of pretty cool front-end things going on and with Node makes your front-end and back-end language cohesive. Sure, there are plenty of other options, but there is something to be said for having guys who can transition from front to back or back to front.
JavaScript Sucks, Rant [Re:Node.js] (Score:3)
Most developers only use JavaScript because it's their only realistic option on the client side for web-based applications. It's kind of like the QWERTY standard: you have to use it because avoiding it is made difficult by entrenchment.
I don't know if better tools (IDE's, interpreters, lint-er's, etc.) could make it more tolerable, but most of us have had a crappy experience with JavaScript in browsers, and this has damaged its reputation such that unless something comes along that repairs its reputation o
Re: (Score:2)
>GWT. Write in a compiled type safe language and let the computer generate all the JavaScript for you.
If my job required me to do a lot of web stuff, this would by the way I would choose.
As it is, there's not much call for SystemVerilog coding in web apps.
Why not... (Score:2)
PHP or Java?
PHP has a number of CMS frameworks built in it.
Java has the JavaEE stack.
Avoid Frameworks. (Score:3)
If you're using a high level language with WSGI for efficiency, then you can choose the one that meets your performance/complexity goals.
Friendly, maintainable, not high performance: Python
Higher performing, C, C++
Supports elegant solutions if your brains are wired differently: Haskell
But unless your code is a mess, there's nothing so valuable as a large codebase of working code with institutional knowledge built around it. That would be PERL.
Re: (Score:2)
Yesod (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I've yet to meet a Framework that makes things as clean and usable as they claim.
And worse, once a web site is in Django or Drupal or somesuch, no novice can edit anything. Template languages are great if you understand the inheritance model, but non techies do not understand those things. They give up, load dreamweaver and mess all over your lovely framework, so they can get content up.
If you have a staff online to support a web site, then fine. They can mediate transactions. But Frameworks are like an ars
PHP is a very solid choice (Score:2)
PHP of old used to make it very easy to write applications with large security holes, but newer versions do a much better job of preventing developer's tendancies to shoot themselves in the foot.
I think it will be a very viable choice for web applications for the next 10 years or more.
There are a number of frameworks written in PHP that are pretty good as well. For my current project though, I've chosen to write a framework that is geared toward exactly what that project needed. I did choose to use an HTML
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true, then fetid garbage like WordPress wouldn't even run on PHP 5.3+, being as its code hasn't changed at all since the days of PHP4.
Globals... globals everywhere...
Re: (Score:2)
Globals have been disabled by default in PHP for a very long time.
"register globals" which allowed post and get parameters to be automatically registered in the global scope was defaulted off a long time ago, and in newer versions of php (5.4+) is not even an option any more. This is historically the feature that got a lot of bad programmers in trouble.
Almost every language has a way for functions to access global scope variables, and PHP is not exception, but to do so now, you have to specify exactly what
.Net / Typescript (Score:3)
I work in a medium sized software development company, and we work exclusively with .Net usually Visual Basic .Net land, typically with the newer frameworks the differences functionality wise are fairly minor .Net 2,0 web forms and are now on .Net 4.0, everything is backwards compatible as far as I can tell between frameworks
C# is also an option in
we started with
Another direction would be php, or something more specialised such as Ruby for example
If you want rapid development cycles then having intelisense / auto completion / linq / entity framework is definitely something to look into
these languages are server side, you also may want to consider how much of your website wants to be written in client side languages such as javascript. Personally I'm planning on learning Typescript which is a subscript of javascript, basically easier to write and more class based with intelisense
It all comes down to what kind of functionality you want to put into your web apps, and what your developers feel comfortable with
Re: (Score:2)
WebForms needs to die, not have new users - if you want to go down the route of .Net then at a minimum it needs to be ASP.Net MVC, or you can go for a third party framework like NancyFX. ASP.Net vNext is worth keeping an eye on as well.
Re:.Net / Typescript (Score:4, Interesting)
There is nothing overkill about MVC. It is far simpler than webforms. Webforms is the one that is overkill. The massive view state object that is serialized with every request, the fact that it tries to emulate windows forms controls with heavy objects and non-HTML tags. You want HTML, use MVC. You want the overkill of webforms controls? MVC is far faster even for simple cases.
I did webforms for even applications ranging from simple to complex for 3 years, and I've been using MVC for almost 3 years now, and I can tell you MVC is far simpler for both cases. Webforms was designed to be familiar to people coming from a Windows Forms background, and that layer that created on top of the simple html/http request/response model of the web is overkill. The viewstate for example is designed to give the programmer the sense that state is continuous through the user's interaction, as if it were a webforms app, to hide the request/response web model from the programmer. But this is overkill and actually makes things more difficult to debug and work around. Having to tweak what goes into viewstate and what doesn't. For those who do it alot it is probably second nature, but it is an unnatural layer of abstraction over how the web works.
Try to do something as simple as a small survey that has a dynamic list of questions. On postback, even though you have no intention of showing the user the form again, in order to capture the user's response you must recreate the entire form, and make sure you do it in just the right event handler in the pipeline. In MVC, all you need is a POCO in the Action method parameter.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question as a heavy C# user. Why Visual Basic? What advantage does it give, either in function or practice or even aesthetics, over C#? It seems that they are functionally identical but that C# has the better syntax; clearly there must be some reason VB.NET is still around though. Enlighten me please?
Ruby/Sinatra (Score:3)
As a greybeard who used to write dynamic gopher sites, I really like to write in Ruby/Sinatra now. It gives me access to lots of nice features (I can install activerecord when I need it) and I can build APIs super quickly and everything in between. And I can get down to the bottom of the network stack pretty easily when I want to. I do miss the Ruby/Rails built-in testing framework, but otherwise haven't looked back since switching from that environment.
Remove the ransom note excuse with Deparse (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the time that removes the crazy from the script. I just got a large legacy code-base and that little trick made my life much better. If the perl code works, then you are just looking for work to do. Newer is not always better.
Re:Remove the ransom note excuse with Deparse (Score:4, Funny)
I just did your deparse trick on my worst perl script, and it made it *worse*! I must be doing something right.
Your Watch Works, and You Want To Fix It (Score:2)
Perl with Mojolicious (Score:2)
Javascript FTW (Score:3)
Why because Javascript is proof that you can write a language that is worse then Perl.
Python (Score:2)
Python strikes the balance for me of being modern enough to not feel like it's constantly breaking, but also old and reliable enough to feel like it has widespread support in terms of libraries and is not going to fall off the map anytime soon.
Java (Score:3, Insightful)
No good answer (Score:2)
today's rising star could quite easily be in tomorrow's dustbin
Well, at some point Perl was a rising star...
No matter what you're going to pick, it won't stand the test of time in the end.
Java or C# + AngularJS (Score:3, Interesting)
Find yourself a good REST writing API (I'd go Jersey & Guice, but many go Spring for Java) and then HTML AngularJS as your front end framework.
Re:Java or C# + AngularJS (Score:5, Insightful)
Crystal Balls (Score:2)
If someone was able to predict the future that well, they'd be buying out Warren Buffett instead of answering questions on slashdot.
Perl does seem to be on a downward popularity spiral. Whether it merits that or not would turn into a heated debate, so I'm only stating that from the perspective of having enough usage momentum to provide sufficient shop staffing options and support in the future.
PHP would be my rough best guess, if you want a dynamic language in the same general family as Perl. PHP is a bit c
"Ossifying" vs. "Stabilizing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding the linked article on Perl... (Score:3)
I'm not going to take sides on 'what language to learn next.' You've not given us enough information on your codebase, the size and nature of your company, etc. I would say a rewrite is as likely to put you out of business than not, but that's ultimately your choice and unless I know all the factors I can't tell you if its a risk worth doing.
Regarding the link you gave on Perl 'ossifying', there was actually a signification discussion on the Perl Reddit about that article which I want to point out:
http://www.reddit.com/r/perl/c... [reddit.com]
I would say the website that generated that article seems to be some sort of SEO play (they just have a bunch of articles on stuff that has some interest and controversy) and they stick ads on it. There's nothing mentioned in it that hasn't been mentioned 100K elsewhere (including here on Slashdot).
Perl has pluses and minuses but I've made a good career at it, and most of the code I've worked with is newer (seldom more for 5 or 6 years old), not legacy stuff from before the first dot com bubble. I'll probably make 200K this year, so I can't say its a bad choice. I work with lots of fun people as well. I also like Javascript. If I was starting today I might choose Scala, its a nice clean, fast language with a lot of forward looking concepts. Best of luck whatever you do.
I know why you are asking, you said "Legacy" (Score:4, Insightful)
The key word in the summary is "legacy". This indicates that there is a large code base that the current developers are not too familiar with (deep knowledge, staff turnover causes this). This causes an organization to fear change due to the related complexity of changes and potential regression bugs. I'm going to guess that there aren't large, mature suites of unit and regression tests.
So I believe you have:
1. Complex code base without a lot of deep developer knowledge of the innards.
2. Fear to change things too much due to complexity and the possibility of introducing bugs.
3. Do not have effective, wide coverage testing implemented.
But, you also have good knowledge of Perl and the architectural elements that compose the system (server software, external libraries, etc.). That knowledge is very valuable and shouldn't be dismissed just for the sake of changing the base language of a system. And you have a working system. How many person years of development have been put into it? Are you willing to spend that much time on the replacement (do you think a replacement could be built in less time, and if so, why?)?
As well, rewriting large admin systems is very risky. I've personally seen two such efforts fail, a 100% failure rate from my personal experience (both had budgets over $5 million, one was over $40 million). Here's an article on this topic:
http://hbr.org/2011/09/why-you... [hbr.org]
Consider keeping the existing system, but embarking on a long term (years) modernization/re-design/improvement effort to make the system more modern (ie. easier to work with). Focus on small, non-breaking changes that can go out with regular enhancement promotions (the modernization effort should be able to stop at any point, with any improvements to the system staying in place - this allows for tight budget control and financial risk mitigation). Hire a good application DBA to perform analysis and recommend changes to the data model. Hire a good software architect or bring in architectural consultants that can bring a different perspective to the understanding of the application, its goals, and how it could be improved.
Here's an article on approaching IT projects in a "Small and Simple" manner:
http://w.objectwatch.com/white... [objectwatch.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Another approach rather than in-place same-tech modernization is the Strangler Pattern, coined by Martin Fowler.
This involves building a new application (or applications, utilities can be important) "around the edges" of the existing one, rewriting functionality aspects into a new system; chipping away at the old system (give the users a better solution for some things and they will not mind working with two systems).
Here's Mr. Fowler's original article about such:
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/... [martinfowler.com]
REST + pure HTML5/JS frontend (Score:3)
Generating HTML on the server is more or less outdated.
So a "web language" on the server doesn't make sense, the way it used to do (like perl cgi, ASP, JSP, PHP and decendents)
What you do now is write the frontend in one of the new JS/HTML frameworks that run exclusivly on the client.
AngularJS is popular and will likely stick around in one form or another. But pick any you like.
For the backend you want to expose REST services, that serves the content in a way that is easy to digest for the frontend (so you don't end up with too much logic out there).
For that I'd recommend taking a look at Scala (10 years old, and not going away) and the Play Framework (http://www.playframework.com/)
What is nice about the Play framework is that it not only makes it easy to expose REST services. It also makes it easier to deploy the client side framework.
Also take a look at using microservices. Using that architecture enables you to write the REST services in smaller components, rather than one big server. That way you can more easily replace each service, when you want to migrate to the next backend technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to rethink that: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011... [infoq.com]
Re: (Score:3)
>Javascript. Code for input validation
Umm... Javascript in a web page can do nothing for input validation. Anyone can send anything they want to a server.
Re: (Score:2)
> its distinguishing strengths are few and aesthetic
Aesthetics matter.
http://www.amazon.com/Machine-... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of the three "scripting languages" I find Ruby to be the nicest with the cleanest syntax, but IO think it's MOP goes way too far and create a whole set of problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to second Groovy on Rails. AKA Grails. It's very mature and is one of the languages that compiles down to Java Opt code. You have a large eco-system of production apps that run in the container. The language is fairly approachable (saying this as someone who came originally from a Perl Web App background in the late 90s). You can also use Java Libraries if there's something you want to get out of box such as one of the many Open Source Apache Libraries or Google Guava Libraries.