My language of choice is Ruby, but I know because of twitter that Ruby can't handle a lot of requests. It is a good idea using it for socket development? or Should I use a functional language like erlang or haskell or scala like twitter developers did?
The company I work for uses Ruby for our web site. We have so far handled a little over 34,000,000,000 hits. We have no problem handling around 10,000,000 hits per day. Peak hits have exceeded 40,000,000 hits per day.
Scalability depends on a lot of factors. Our databases do a disproportionately high percentage of writes compared to reads, for example. While most websites do about 90% reads to 10% writes, we are closer to 50%-50%. My point is that scalability is affected by a lot of factors. If you are database-limited, as is often the case for web apps, it won't matter what language you use, you'll be waiting on your database.
There's a lot to think about if you are looking at handling large scales. Sharding databases, memcached, etc. etc. etc. etc. The language you use for your application is just one aspect, and often, though not always, a small aspect of scalability.
Ruby may be a good option for you, but there's a lot to like in other languages. Erlang tries hard to make it easier to recover from errors, for example.
I'm not sure that any "lessons" that the Twitter team has learned about Ruby (more specifically, Rails) and scaling would apply to your project. They're looking at WAY more traffic than most people can reasonably expect to see.
As far as sockets and Ruby go, check out I like Unicorn because it's Unix. It's quite an interesting read about doing sockets in Ruby.
I'd like to provide a bit of context first. I'm pretty active with the Scala community, and I would choose Scala over Ruby for any project.
So, having said that, keep with Ruby unless you actually hit barrier. If Ruby is your language of choice, it might just be that you'll never be happy with the choices you mention, particularly the statically typed ones.
It might be good to learn a new language, to have something to fall back on if you need an alternative. In your case, I'd recommend Clojure or Erlang. Scala is a good statically typed, OO language with functional programming perks. It might be easier to learn than the others, but people who really like dynamic typing don't convert to static typing easy.
As for Haskell, it's one of the most awesome languages out there (and much more well support and popular than the equally awesome alternatives), and can open your mind like nothing else. It's also tough to master.
If ruby is your favorite language, yes it is a good idea. It is always better to use what you know and what you like
Whereas you may get better performance from a functional language such as Erlang the suitability of Ruby will really depend on what you are trying to achieve. For example how many requests are you going to be handling is probably the first question, if the performance benefits of using Erlang don't make much difference use something you are comfortable with, why learn a new language if you don't have to?
You at least have the option of staying in your favorite high level language if you use a fast, concurrent language like Haskell, Erlang or Scala. With Ruby, performance bottlenecks will mean switching to compiled C (or Haskell, or ...) for speed anyway.
Ruby has the advantage of good frontend frameworks.
I have also used Ruby for many projects though I've recently moved to Scala and like it quite a bit. One thing that I've heard good things about (but never tried myself) for network stuff in Ruby is EventMachine. It uses the Reactor Pattern just like twisted and it seems quite solid.
The key is to have a low level library in C/C++ that does the socket multiplexing for you. Socket multiplexing is what makes a TCP server process truly multi-user. such libraries in C (which is what you want) could be libevent/libev... and in c++ boost::asio. Python has twisted that does it behind the scenes.
If you get such a library and use it in ruby you should be able to implement most socket programs fairly well. This is especially true on UNIX oses which favour multi-process to multi-threading.
Having recently written (actually still doing so now), a project using sockets with Ruby and Java I would say no. The ruby socket implementation is poorly documented unless you plan on writing a basic blocking chat server. I found writing in C or Java simpler, Ruby wraps up native sockets and your kinda left wondering how the hell to use it now. I have previously written plenty of socket code on windows, Linux and other platforms in C, with less stress.
My Ruby code now is very small and works well, getting to that point was a real pain.
Related
So as I have asked in a previous post, I want to be able to make programs or functions written in different languages to communicate between them.
I have come across zeromq recently and I'm trying to figure out whether or not this is something that could help me since it provides some sort of sockets. Can zeromq for example exchange data (or pass arguments) between a program written in python with a program or a function written in C++ or is its function for something completely different?
A: Oh Yes, exactly that is the power of ZeroMQ or nanomsg frameworks
Both of these are not sockets but rather BEHAVIOUR created within a context of a Zero-* -- a set of courageous maxims the Scaleable Formal Communication Pattern Framework was designed, developed and finetuned to meet.
That will enable you to assemble your own fast & smart messaging layer(s).
Q: What is the best next step?
In spite of your first impression, simly do forget anything you know about sockets and multithreaded synchronisation tricks.
Yes, rather forget and build your new understanding on "green field".
Take Pieter HINTJENS' book "Code Connected, Volume 1" (accessible in PDF ) and spend a few weeks on understanding both the motivation and the typical errors Pieter has hammered into this must-read bible of ZeroMQ.
Code-snippets are dangerous in case you did not get or completely missed the full-context of the bigger picture.
Believe me. I could not give you better advice. You may check my other posts on ZeroMQ & nanomsg, to see the difference.
You will definitely benefit from this book and ZeroMQ will give you many powers you would never ( and believe me never ) would be ready to program from scratch on your own. The power is so immense ( if well re-used ).
nota bene
For real-world inter-process communications, there is one minor issue to be aware of. Various ZeroMQ versions' inter-operability. Yes, the power of ZeroMQ is immense, nevertheless, it is necessary to keep the version control built in your messaging layer so as to solve situations, where some platforms do not have an update-path to "newer" releases available. Went into this issue with re-integration of a trading system with a component, where as old as zmq.__version__ == 2.1.11 was necessary, while recent are versions well above 14.x.y, so as to be assured to be 100% end-to-end backward-compatible.
Still, the overall potential is so immense, it makes sense to persevere and get the job done. G/L on that.
ZeroMQ is an abstraction of sockets. It is cross platform and have lots of language binding: I personally don't know any language that doesn't have ZeroMQ bindings.
So yes, you can use ZeroMQ to communicate between a program written in Python and program written in C++.
I recommend going through the zguide as it contains a lot of very useful information about ZeroMQ.
PyZMQ can be used as Python binding, and zmqpp for your C++ code. Note that for the C++ code you could also use cppzmq or the zmq C API directly. I would recommend using zmqpp as its higher level and (imho) easier to use.
I'm one of those classic native programmers that has spent most of his past with .exe's and .jar's. As of the past year I've thrown my self into the world of web frameworks and technologies that seize to impress me. As of the past 1½ month I have fallen In love with Go because of it's strictness, and also how 'stand-alone' it seems to be. So now to the real question...
Go app engine application, why do we need this?
What is the difference and reasoning to choose a wrapped application (framework)?
I assume its purpose is to load some of the communication off the application to the wrapper, but sadly I can't seem to figure out (through documentation and discussion) what the specific purpose behind this modulation is.
Best regards and cyber high fives in your direction!
These really are two different questions.
1. Why GAE?
It's up to you. GAE provides cloud-based hosting that you pay rental to use. It's a bit similar to Amazon Web Services. Your Go app would be uploaded to GAE, where it provides your web service and your users can do lots of wonderful things. Meanwhile you never need to know which actual server is doing the serving at any given time - the app can migrate across their servers dynamically. GAE provides a high uptime and a low effort for you in keeping the server secure, backed up etc. It will also be elastic to cope with surges in load.
You may instead prefer to rent a private server (e.g. at Rackspace) or just a virtual machine. You'd perferably need to be a Linux expert (get lots of help at Serverfault) and you'll have to do the backup, firewall etc all yourself. It may cost (much) less. Or more.
2. Choosing a framework?
The net/http API allows you to write HTTP server code to do pretty well anything you want. But you have to do quite a lot of hard work. At the opposite extreme, frameworks like Revel make rapid server development possible, as long as it does the things you want of it. If you stray into functionality beyond what it offers, you might have to do quite a lot of digging to find out how to extend the framework.
Other interesting toolkits include Gorilla, Gocraft Web and Goji. In terms of complexity, these sit about halfway between Revel and basic net/http.
To answer your second question, here are some pros and cons of using a framework (e.g., revel) vs. something simpler like a toolkit (e.g., gorilla)
In general, the pros of using a framework are:
it provides a lot of sub-packages to handle important web-related sub-tasks like templating, generating data in specified formats like json or xml, query escaping, etc.
it handles boilerplate http handling
it (hopefully) enforces best practices like escaping strings
it helps you manage complexity by enforcing a consistent design pattern in the way you handle requests
Cons of using a framework:
frameworks tend to be "opinionated," meaning you have to buy into their general philosophy and understand their core concepts before you can make use of them; for a lot of frameworks this can be quite a bit of mental overhead
extra layer of abstraction, meaning you're another step removed from what's really going on, and there will be more stuff to understand and debug if something goes wrong
it can be brittle and hard to do something that isn't a standard use case in the framework
future maintainability: most frameworks don't tend to have a super long lifespan. Django and Rails have been around for a long time, but there's a massive graveyard of frameworks that came before them. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's hard to pick the right horse from the outset.
Recommendation
It's hard to make the call upfront. So much depends on the specifics of your problem, but I'd say in the case of Go, opt for the simpler option. Much of the value-add of frameworks in other languages is the fact that they contain useful sub-packages that handle important tasks, but Go already contains a lot of these in its standard library (e.g., encoding/json, net/http, net/url, text/template). I've built a fairly sophisticated web app using just the Gorilla toolkit and the go standard library, and it's been amazingly good, and the best part is, it's incredibly easy to understand what the code does and I can explain it to someone else without requiring them to first read through the massive About page of some third party framework.
If you want to get a sense of how other people use Gorilla, you might try looking at real-world usage examples. Compare that to how people use more sophisticated frameworks and pick whichever you like better.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm part of a group that starts a new development project from scratch.
Currently it is on hobby-basis but we aim to make it our living
in the time frame of 1-2 years.
We are senior developers coming from a multitude of languages and techniques
with much of the focus on Java for the last few years.
Now, we're thinking of choice of toolsets and languages (the future is
bright when starting from scratch).
We want to be able to use modern architectures efficiently and have
good experience in Java and other JRE-based techniques.
The project is in short a lot of I/O, databases and a decent UI that probably
needs to be web-based and feel quite efficient.
One route to go is classic Java and build UI using GWT (or layers on top of GWT),
another is Scala + lift.
Then there are other techniques based on Ruby, Groovy and so on.
My question is then: What would you select as tools for a new long-term
project given the above. Is Scala here to stay for instance or is one
of those with only temporary hype?
What other techniques do you consider for larger projects from scratch?
Possibly your biggest binary choice is whether you decide to stay on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) via either Java or one of the other languages which compile into bytecode, or to move onto some other platform, possibly Ruby or Python (with the complications of working with different architectures/operating systems that this may entail). Personally, I decided that I very much wanted to stick with the JVM and hence your language choices would be...
Scala
All I can give is my own experiences coming from a Java background: migrating to scala was made easy by its natural integration into the Java ecosystem and the ability to continue to use pretty much the same toolset in the same way.
By this last point I mean that the statically-typed nature of scala means that all the refactoring and code-navigation opportunities are still available to the developer but scala's type inference means that this comes without the unnecessary verbosity of type declarations littered throughout your code.
I can still use my favourite stuff like Spring, ant, IDEA and I can still use all the libraries I've ever written in Java (this is an argument for picking a language which integrates with Java over a completely new one like Ruby, Smalltalk or Python).
From the perspective of whether scala is here to stay as a JVM language, this is what concerned me most. But consider how many questions on SO have been tagged Jython (161), JRuby (176), clojure (388) and Groovy (661), assuming you wish to stay on the JVM. Not only is scala now well ahead of these (815) but it is growing at quite a rate.
Lastly, although I have not used Lift, a colleague has been extremely impressed with it (and I would probably look at it if I were writing a web application). The fat-client alternative (scala swing) I have found to be more than useable (better than raw swing at any rate!).
Groovy
It's worth noting that the creator of Groovy recently said that had he known of the existence of Scala, he would never have bothered to create Groovy!
JRuby / Jython
I have lumped these two languages together because they both represent an attempt to port the syntax of a dynamic language onto the JVM. Unless that syntax is already familiar to you, why would you bother to go down this route? I must say, the SO stats (above) do not indicate that these have the momentum at the moment.
I would also opine that moving from a statically-compiled to a dynamic language is a big step and you might be surprised by what you miss (in terms of refactoring and development aides etc.) - you may also care about the fact that the interpreted nature of these languages makes them over an order of magnitude slower than Scala.
Clojure
I have no real opinions on clojure other than to say that with an imperative background, its syntax is scary and its flow extremely unfamiliar. I am becoming more impressed by the functional paradigm but I felt that clojure was a step too far for me; I would be a fish out of water in the language, having no previous experience of LISP/Scheme.
The choice of language implies a lot of other choices, which collectively can be more important than the language choice itself. More specifically, when you choose a language, you're also choosing that language's web framework, ORM, IDE, build tool, etc.
For example, if you choose Groovy, you're implicitly also choosing the Grails web framework, if you choose Scala you're choosing Lift, etc. Although you can use Eclipse/Netbeans/IntelliJ for almost any JVM language, the experience varies quite a bit depending on which language you're using. Eclipse is a great IDE for Java development, but a pretty crappy one for Groovy/Grails development.
The problem with this kind of question is that if you ask a guy who uses language X, he'll tell you to choose X, then list all the reasons why X is so great and a few shallow reasons not to use the other languages. Examples of such shallow criticisms include:
Scala
poor tool support
functional programming is esoteric to typical OO developers
Groovy
dynamic languages are unsuitable for large projects
dynamic languages perform poorly
Jython
whitespace indendation as code block delimiters sucks
dynamic langages (see above)
JRuby
reputation for bad performance
funky syntax (from the POV of a Java developer, at least)
Clojure
very funky syntax (from the POV of almost everyone)
very immature
I should emphasise that I don't necessarily believe any of the statements above to be true,
the point I'm trying to make is that it's very easy to dismiss languages without any real experience of them (I only really know one of the languages above). So I wouldn't put too much faith in what people say against a particular language, unless you're sure they've really used it.
If I was faced with your choice I would use Groovy/Grails, because I find it to be an extremely productive and enjoyable technology to work with for building web apps, with good tool support. Are there other choices that might be even better? Sure, but Groovy/Grails is good enough for me (for now).
If you all have strong Java background and no functional and/or dynamic languages background, then you are likely to do well by keeping to Java or migrating to Scala.
I don't mean to disparage any of the other languages here, but Scala will be more familiar to you, and you can put your Java familiarity to good use. Whether you should jump to Scala or not -- that's another question. If you do, however, take notice that you need not be stuck with Lift. Not only there are other web frameworks in Scala, but people have had success combining Scala with traditional Java frameworks such as Wicket.
I worked a lot with Scala, Groovy and JRuby and I can share my experience
Scala
This language was designed in a very in a professional way. You can see it in every aspect of it.
No performance issues because it is a static typed language.
Interesting to learn and play with because of its functional nature.
BUT:
It is very complicated. You can't spend an evening to write a hello world program. You should spend at least a weekend)) Dmitry Jemerov (one of the creators of IntelliJ) said that Scala is much more complex than C++.
Lack of a good tool support. I believe that IDEs for Groovy and Ruby is much superior.
Not well integrated into java ecosystem. Of course you can use java libraries but you will dance a lot of all conversions from one collection to another e.t.c.
Lack of pure Scala libs. You always have to write a small wrapper over a java lib.
Groovy
Has shortcuts for most java boilerplate code.
Great IDE integration.
Interactions with Java are so natural and easy. It is not important whether you use a java class or a groovy class, it just works.
Great for writing DSLs
BUT:
It is a slow language (But I think that it is not an issue in most cases)
As the integration with java is the main goal of Groovy there are some unnatural aspects of the language.
JRuby
One of the best designed languages I've ever seen.
There are a lot of cool libs that can be used.
The best language for writing internal DSLs
Easy to learn.
BUT:
The integration with java sucks.
In my opinion it is too early to use Scala in production systems. It is just too hard because of the lack of tools and libraries. I used Groovy in many big projects quite successfully so it may be the best tool from these 3 languages.
With the information given you can choose any language proposed. They will all still be here in 5 years.
If you cannot decide which tool to pick for your requirements we can't help you. The information given is just to vague to decide. Start building some prototypes for all language/framework and see what fits best. Maybe the requirements are more clear afterwards.
Have you tried Jython -- Python working on JVM? I use it quite often to do various database tasks and it works quite well with such databases as Oracle, PostgreSQL and Informix. I do not create classic UI apps, but I have read that well known Python Web frameworks like web2py or django work with Jython.
If you have experience using dynamic languages, and are able to write the unit tests to support them, go that way. The development speed should be greater than what you can achieve from a static language. However, as the project will get bigger, it may become harder & harder to mantain ( it may only be me, but compile time checks help you a great deal ).
If however, you have Scala experience, I'd choose that instead. I find Scala to be a nice mix between Java and Ruby.
Good luck!
I've found Ruby to be very attractive; I like the fact that everything is an object and its syntax is very appealing.
I was hoping that it would gain a lot of popularity this year, but I don't see lot of activity in Ruby.
For instance if we take the number of tags added in SO there are only about 700 questions tagged as "ruby." This may be because:
Ruby is so easy, noone has any questions.
This site attracts more from the.Net community and Ruby developers ignore its existence.
There are not as many Ruby projects as there projects in other programming languages.
Other resources show Ruby is not as popular as other programming languages.
What reasons do you think are behind this?
Links:
TIOBE Programming Community Index for October 2008
StackOverflow tags
Ohloh
You're mistakenly attributing something to Ruby. RubyForge alone reports over 1,000 open-source projects, let alone all Ruby on Rails apps that exist, and the projects hosted on Github, Sourceforge, and elsewhere.
Unless you spend a lot of time on other sites (Reddit is a good example) you will be unaware of just how .NET/Oracle/SQL Server/etc.-centric Stack Overflow is. (I use a Greasemonkey plugin to hide a broad swathe of these Windows- and "Enterprise"-centric technologies, because they don't interest me.)
I actually had the complementary experience to you: I started spending time on Stack Overflow, and had something of a "woah" moment when I realized just how many people spend their days futzing with ASP.NET. That's not a world in which I'd spent any time, so I had underestimated its size.
Some parts of the internet (e.g., Reddit) are primarily concerned with free software and its associated languages: Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP.
Some parts (e.g., Lambda the Ultimate) are concerned with more esoteric languages: Haskell, Lisp, Joy, Coq.
Other parts (e.g., Stack Overflow) are more mainstream: Java, .NET.
You cannot draw any conclusions about the popularity of a language by sampling just one of these 'pools'.
Ruby had its moment in the sun in 2005 - 2006 when Rails was making its way through the community and Apple decided that it would package it with OS X. So to pick 2008 as the year for Ruby to gain a lot of popularity seems amiss to me.
The Ruby language itself is, as you stated, very attractive. Its syntax and OOP model are what make it a hit with developers. You get equivocally the same product as you would with another language, but with what feels like less time wasted on internals.
Rails is really what I think is holding Ruby in the mainstream right now, more or less because of its ease-of-use and database handling. Web developers love it for that.
If you really want to see sites that have a lot of Ruby(on Rails) chatter on them, you could check out http://refactormycode.com or http://pastie.org. Those websites are built on RoR and are used very frequently by Ruby(on Rails) users.
Regardless of any real numbers, one thing I do know: When I go to look for a Ruby library for something I'm working on, I find something satisfactory over 90% of the time. And for some of the remaining 10%, it isn't that hard to write something myself. I do believe that 90% figure will rise over the next few years, too.
If I get what I need, I don't really care whether PHP or Python or C# has sixty bajillion applications and libraries written for them. :)
I find Ruby very attractive in several ways, but it has some issues holding it back.
The biggest I think is that Python already covers much of the same ground, has a larger library of projects, and thusfar better performance.
The other main problem I've had is also the thing that keeps it so popular: Rails. I think there are a lot of people that don't even think of Ruby as a standalone language. While I appreciate that Rails is supposed to be pretty great, it is not anything I deal with, and thus I get annoyed at having to wade through so much discussion of Rails to find an answer to a question in Ruby as a standalone language.
One last thing that has made me skittish about it is the 'more than one way to do it' philosophy it shares with Perl. I was not a fan of that.
It is really a matter of their already being a few hammers around, and Ruby's main distinguishing feature that most people tout currently is Rails.
There's a lot of activity with Ruby in web-based development. You just have to join the right communities and lists.
I don't think it will ever be as popular as C/C++ (because of the existence of already deployed code and a developer base) or Java (because I imagine it isn't quite as easy to understand at first).
2 - Not many rubyist come here. I you look there is a TONNE of Ruby projects. Just not here so much.
Check out what is happening on Github, rubyforge etc. I mean, Rails for starters is massive.
Here's my theory:
Industry Adoption - Although ruby is used in the real world, other languages (e.g. Java, C++, C#, etc.) have been accepted as "safe languages". No one ever got fired for picking Java, or C#, but CIOs' eyebrows have been known to raise when ruby is mentioned.
Talent Pool - When selecting a language, you want to know that you can find a good pool of talent. The more popular the language, the larger the pool, and the greater number of experts (statistically) (statistics do lie 50% of the time ;) ).
My hopes:
I believe the ruby talent pool will grow over time and the productivity offered by ruby will present a huge incentive for its adoption.
More and more colleges will teach it.
Please don't take TIOBE too seriously. Checking search engines for instances of "language-name programming" as some sort of indicator of popularity isn't very meaningful.
More than likely because it is younger than a lot of other languages and, on the web side of things, isn't as easy to implement as PHP and Python. Ruby has also gained notoriety as a web scripting language due to Rails which may be turning off some developers who are looking for client-based languages to work with.
Is Ruby not popular? I think it is but it hasn't really reached a critical mass yet to be widely accepted.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Does it make sense, having all of the C#-managed-bliss, to go back to Petzold's Programming Windows and try to produce code w/ pure WinAPI?
What can be learn from it? Isn't it just too outdated to be useful?
This question is bordering on religious :) But I'll give my thoughts anyway.
I do see value in learing the Win32 API. Most, if not all, GUI libraries (managed or unmanaged) result in calls to the Win32 API. Even the most thorough libraries don't cover 100% of the API, and hence there are always gaps which need to be plugged by direct API calls or P/invoking. Some of the names of the wrappers around the API calls have similar names to the underlying API calls, but those names aren't exactly self-documenting. So understanding the underlying API, and the terminology used therein, will aid in understanding the wrapper APIs and what they actually do.
Plus, if you understand the nature of the underlying APIs that are used by frameworks, then you will make better choices with regards to which library functionality you should use in a given scenario.
Cheers!
I kept to standard C/C++ for years before learning Win32 API, and to be quite blunt, the "learning Win32 API" part is not the best technical experience of my life.
In one hand Win32 API is quite cool. It's like an extension of the C standard API (who needs fopen when you can have CreateFile. But I guess UNIX/Linux/WhateverOS have the same gizmo functions. Anyway, in Unix/Linux, they have the "Everything is a file". In Windows, they have the "Everything is a... Window" (no kidding! See CreateWindow!).
In the other hand, this is a legacy API. You will be dealing with raw C, and raw C madness.
Like telling one's structure its own size to pass through a void * pointer to some Win32 function.
Messaging can be quite confusing, too: Mixing C++ objects with Win32 windows lead to very interesting examples of Chicken or Egg problem (funny moments when you write a kind of delete this ; in a class method).
Having to subclass a WinProc when you're more familiar with object inheritance is head-splitting and less than optimal.
And of course, there is the joy of "Why in this fracking world they did this thing this way ??" moments when you strike your keyboard with your head once too many and get back home with keys engraved in your forehead, just because someone thought it more logical to write an API to enable the changing of the color of a "Window", not by changing one of its properties, but by asking it to its parent window.
etc.
In the last hand (three hands ???), consider that some people working with legacy APIs are themselves using legacy code styling. The moment you hear "const is for dummies" or "I don't use namespaces because they decrease the runtime speed", or the even better "Hey, who needs C++? I code in my own brand of object-oriented C!!!" (No kidding... In a professional environment, and the result was quite a sight...), you'll feel the kind of dread only condemned feel in front of the guillotine.
So... All in all, it's an interesting experience.
Edit
After re-reading this post, I see it could be seen as overly negative. It is not.
It is sometimes interesting (as well as frustrating) to know how the things work under the hood. You'll understand that, despite enormous (impossible?) constraints, the Win32 API team did wonderful work to be sure everything, from you "olde Win16 program" to your "last Win64 over-the-top application", can work together, in the past, now, and in the future.
The question is: Do you really want to?
Because spending weeks to do things that could be done (and done better) in other more high-level and/or object-oriented API can be quite de-motivational (real life experience: 3 weeks for Win API, against 4 hours in three other languages and/or libraries).
Anyway, you'll find Raymond Chen's Blog very interesting because of his insider's view on both Win API and its evolution through the years:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/
Absolutely. When nobody knows the low level, who will update and write the high level languages? Also, when you understand the low level stuff, you can write more efficient code in a higher level language, and also debug more efficiently.
The native APIs are the "real" operating system APIs. The .NET library is (with few exceptions) nothing more than a fancy wrapper around them. So yes, I'd say that anybody who can understand .NET with all its complexity, can understand relatively mundane things like talking to the API without the benefit of a middle-man.
Just try to do DLL Injection from managed code. It can't be done. You will be forced to write native code for this, for windowing tweaks, for real subclassing, and a dozen other things.
So yes: you should (must) know both.
Edit: even if you plan to use P/Invoke.
On the assumption that you're building apps targeted at Windows:
it can sure be informative to understand lower levels of the system - how they work, how your code interacts with them (even if only indirectly), and where you have additional options that aren't available in the higher-level abstractions
there are times when your code might not be as efficient, high-performance or precise enough for your requirements
However, in more and more cases, folks like us (who never learned "unmanaged coding") will be able to pull off the programming we're trying to do without "learning" Win32.
Further, there's plenty of sites that provide working samples, code fragments and even fully-functional source code that you can "leverage" (borrow, plagiarize - but check that you're complying with any re-use license or copyright!) to fill in any gaps that aren't handled by the .NET framework class libraries (or the libraries that you can download or license).
If you can pull off the feats you need without messing around in Win32, and you're doing a good job of developing well-formed, readable managed code, then I'd say mastering .NET would be a better choice than spreading yourself thin over two very different environments.
If you frequently need to leverage those features of Windows that haven't received good Framework class library coverage, then by all means, learn the skills you need.
I've personally spent far too much time worrying about the "other areas" of coding that I'm supposed to understand to produce "good programs", but there's plenty of masochists out there that think everyone's needs and desires are like their own. Misery loves company. :)
On the assumption that you're building apps for the "Web 2.0" world, or that would be just as useful/beneficial to *NIX & MacOS users:
Stick with languages and compilers that target as many cross-platform environments as possible.
pure .NET in Visual Studio is better than Win32 obviously, but developing against the MONO libraries, perhaps using the Sharp Develop IDE, is probably an even better approach.
you could also spend your time learning Java, and those skills would transfer very well to C# programming (plus the Java code would theoretically run on any platform with the matching JRE). I've heard it said that Java is more like "write once, debug everywhere", but that's probably as true as (or even moreso than) C#.
Analogy: If you build cars for a living (programming), then its very pertinent to know how the engine works (Win32).
Simple answer, YES.
This is the answer to any question that is like.. "does it make sense to learn a low level language/api X even when a higher level language/api Y is there"
YES
You are able to boot up your Windows PC (or any other OS) and ask this question in SO because a couple of guys in Microsoft wrote 16-bit assembly code that loads your OS.
Your browser works because someone wrote an OS kernel in C that serves all your browser's requests.
It goes all the way up to scripting languages.
Big or small, there is always a market and opportunity to write something in any level of abstraction. You just have to like it and fit in the right job.
No api/language at any level of abstraction is irrelevent unless there is a better one competing at the same level.
Another way of looking at it: A good example from one of Michael Abrash's book: A C programmer was given the task of writing a function to clear the screen. Since C was a better (higher level) abstraction over assembly and all, the programmer only knew C and knew it well. He did his best - he moved the cursor to each location on the screen and cleared the character there. He optimized the loop and made sure it ran as fast as it could. But still it was slow... until some guy came in and said there was some BIOS/VGA instruction or something that could clear the screen instantly.
It always helps to know what you are walking on.
Yes, for a few reasons:
1) .net wraps Win32 code. .net is usually a superior system to code against, but having some knowledge of the underlying Win32 layer (oops, WinAPI now that there is 64-bit code too) bolsters your knowledge of what is really happening.
2) in this economy, it is better to have some advantages over the other guy when you are looking for a job. Some WinAPI experience may provide this for you.
3) some system aspects are not available through the .net framework yet, and if you want to access those features you will need to use p/invoke (see http://www.pinvoke.net for some help there). Having at least a smattering of WinAPI experience will make your p/invoke development effort a lot more efficient.
4) (added) Now that Win8 has been around for awhile, it is still built on top of the WinAPI. iOS, Android, OS/X, and Linux are all out there, but the WinAPI will still be out there for many many years.
Learning a new programming language or technology is for one of three reasons:
1. Need: you're starting a project for building a web application and you don't know anything about ASP.NET
2. Enthusiasm: you're very excited about ASP.NET MVC. why not try that?
3. Free time: but who has that anyway.
The best reason to learn something new is Need. If you need to do something that the .NET framework can't do (like performance for example) then WinAPI is your solution. Until then we keep ourself busy with learning about .NET
For most needs on the desktop you wont need to know the Win32, however there is a LOT of Win32 not in .NET, but it is in the outlaying stuff that may end up being less than 1% of your application.
USB support, HID support, Windows Media Foundation just off the top of my head. There are many cool Vista API's only available from Win32.
You will do yourself a large favor by learning how to do interop with a Win32 API, if you do desktop programing, because when you do need to call Win32, and you will, you won't spend weeks scratching your head.
Personally I don't really like the Win32 API but there's value in learning it as the API will allow more control and efficiency using the GUI than a language like Visual Basic, and I believe that if you're going to make a living writing software you should know the API even if you don't use it directly. This is for reasons similar to the reasons it's good to learn C, like how a strcpy takes more time than copying an integer, or why you should use pointers to arrays as function parameters instead of arrays by value.
Learning C or a lower level language can definitely be useful. However, I don't see any obvious advantage in using the unmanaged WinAPI.
I've seen low level Windows API code... it ain't pretty... I wish I could unlearn it. I think it benefits to learn low level as in C, as you gain a better understanding of the hardware architecture and how all that stuff works. Learning old Windows API... I think that stuff can be left to the people at Microsoft who may need to learn it to build higher level languages and API... they built it, let them suffer with it ;-)
However, if you happen to find a situation where you feel you just can't do what you need to do in a higher level language (few and far between), then perhaps start the dangerous dive into that world.
yes. take a look at uTorrent, an amazing piece of software efficiency. Half of it's small size is due to the fact that much of it's core components were re-written to not use gargatuian libraries.
Much of this couldn't be done without understanding how these libraries interface with the lower level API's
It's important to know what is available with the Windows API. I don't think you need to crank out code with it, but you should know how it works. The .NET Framework contains a lot of functionality, but it doesn't provide managed code equivalents for the entire Windows API. Sometimes you have to get a bit closer to the metal, and knowing what's down there and how it behaves will give you a better understanding of how to use it.
This is really the same as the question, should I learn a low level language like C (or even assembler).
Coding in it is certainly slower (though of course the result is much faster), but its true advantage is you gain an insight into what is happening at close to the system level, rather than than just understanding someone else's metaphor for what is going on.
It can also be better when things won't work well, or fast enough or with the sort of granularity that you need. (And do at least some subclassing and superclassing.)
I'll put it this way. I don't like programming to the Win32 API. It can be a pain compared to managed code. BUT, I'm glad I know it because I can write programs that otherwise I wouldn't be able to. I can write programs that other people can't. Plus it gives you more insight into what your managed code is doing behind the scenes.
The amount of value you get out of learning the Win32 API, (aside from the sorts of general insights you get from learning about how the nuts and bolts of the machine fit together) depends on what you're trying to achieve. A lot of the Win32 API has been wrapped nicely in .NET library classes, but not all of it. If for instance you're looking to do some serious audio programming, that portion of the Win32 API would be an excellent subject of study because only the most basic of operations are available from .NET classes. Last I checked even the managed DirectX DirectSound library was awful.
At the risk of shameless self-promotion....
I just came across a situation where the Win32 API was my only option. I want to have different tooltips on each item in a listbox. I wrote up how I did it on this question.
Even in very very high level languages you still make use of the API. Why? Well not every aspect of the API has been replicated by the various libraries, frameworks, etc. You need to learn the API for as long as you will need the API to accomplish what you are trying to do. (And no longer.)
Apart from some very special cases when you need direct access to APIs, I would say NO.
There is considerable time and effort required to learn to implement the native API calls correctly and the returning value is just not worth it. I would rather spend the time learning some new hot technology or framework that will make your life easier and programming less painful. Not decades-old obsolete COM libraries that nobody really uses anymore (sorry to COM users).
Please don't stone me for this view. I know a lot of engineers here have really curious souls and there is nothing wrong with learning how things work. Curiousity is good and really helps understanding. But from a managerial point of view, I would rather spend a week learning how to develop Android apps than how to calls OLEs or COMs.
If you planning to develop a cross platform application, If you use win32, then your application could easily run on linux through WINE. This results in a highly maintainable application. This is one of the advantages of learning win32.