It's hard to predict what life will be like in a hundred years. There are only a few things we can say with certainty. We know that everyone will drive flying cars, that zoning laws will be relaxed to allow buildings hundreds of stories tall, that it will be dark most of the time, and that women will all be trained in the martial arts. Here I want to zoom in on one detail of this picture. What kind of programming language will they use to write the software controlling those flying cars? This is worth thinking about not so much because we'll actually get to use these languages as because, if we're lucky, we'll use languages on the path from this point to that. I think that, like species, languages will form evolutionary trees, with dead-ends branching off all over. We can see this happening already. Cobol, for all its sometime popularity, does not seem to have any intellectual descendants. It is an evolutionary dead-end-- a Neanderthal language. I predict a similar fate for Java. People sometimes send me mail saying, "How can you say that Java won't turn out to be a successful language? It's already a successful language." And I admit that it is, if you measure success by shelf space taken up by books on it (particularly individual books on it), or by the number of undergrads who believe they have to learn it to get a job. When I say Java won't turn out to be a successful language, I mean something more specific: that Java will turn out to be an evolutionary dead-end, like Cobol. This is just a guess. I may be wrong. My point here is not to dis Java, but to raise the issue of evolutionary trees and get people asking, where on the tree is language X? The reason to ask this question isn't just so that our ghosts can say, in a hundred years, I told you so. It's because staying close to the main branches is a useful heuristic for finding languages that will be good to program in now. At any given time, you're probably happiest on the main branches of an evolutionary tree. Even when there were still plenty of Neanderthals, it must have sucked to be one. The Cro-Magnons would have been constantly coming over and beating you up and stealing your food. The reason I want to know what languages will be like in a hundred years is so that I know what branch of the tree to bet on now. The evolution of languages differs from the evolution of species because branches can converge. The Fortran branch, for example, seems to be merging with the descendants of Algol. In theory this is possible for species too, but it's not likely to have happened to any bigger than a cell. Convergence is more likely for languages partly because the space of possibilities is smaller, and partly because mutations are not random. Language designers deliberately incorporate ideas from other languages. It's especially useful for language designers to think about where the evolution of programming languages is likely to lead, because they can steer accordingly. In that case, "stay on a main branch" becomes more than a way to choose a good language. It becomes a heuristic for making the right decisions about language design. Any programming language can be divided into two parts: some set of fundamental operators that play the role of axioms, and the rest of the language, which could in principle be written in terms of these fundamental operators. I think the fundamental operators are the most important factor in a language's long term survival. The rest you can change. It's like the rule that in buying a house you should consider location first of all. Everything else you can fix later, but you can't fix the location. I think it's important not just that the axioms be well chosen, but that there be few of them. Mathematicians have always felt this way about axioms-- the fewer, the better-- and I think they're onto something. At the very least, it has to be a useful exercise to look closely at the core of a language to see if there are any axioms that could be weeded out. I've found in my long career as a slob that cruft breeds cruft, and I've seen this happen in software as well as under beds and in the corners of rooms. I have a hunch that the main branches of the evolutionary tree pass through the languages that have the smallest, cleanest cores. The more of a language you can write in itself, the better. Of course, I'm making a big assumption in even asking what programming languages will be like in a hundred years. Will we even be writing programs in a hundred years? Won't we just tell computers what we want them to do? There hasn't been a lot of progress in that department so far. My guess is that a hundred years from now people will still tell computers what to do using programs we would recognize as such. There may be tasks that we solve now by writing programs and which in a hundred years you won't have to write programs to solve, but I think there will still be a good deal of programming of the type that we do today. It may seem presumptuous to think anyone can predict what any technology will look like in a hundred years. But remember that we already have almost fifty years of history behind us. Looking forward a hundred years is a graspable idea when we consider how slowly languages have evolved in the past fifty. Languages evolve slowly because they're not really technologies. Languages are notation. A program is a formal description of the problem you want a computer to solve for you. So the rate of evolution in programming languages is more like the rate of evolution in mathematical notation than, say, transportation or communications. Mathematical notation does evolve, but not with the giant leaps you see in technology. Whatever computers are made of in a hundred years, it seems safe to predict they will be much faster than they are now. If Moore's Law continues to put out, they will be 74 quintillion (73,786,976,294,838,206,464) times faster. That's kind of hard to imagine. And indeed, the most likely prediction in the speed department may be that Moore's Law will stop working. Anything that is supposed to double every eighteen months seems likely to run up against some kind of fundamental limit eventually. But I have no trouble believing that computers will be very much faster. Even if they only end up being a paltry million times faster, that should change the ground rules for programming languages substantially. Among other things, there will be more room for what would now be considered slow languages, meaning languages that don't yield very efficient code. And yet some applications will still demand speed. Some of the problems we want to solve with computers are created by computers; for example, the rate at which you have to process video images depends on the rate at which another computer can generate them. And there is another class of problems which inherently have an unlimited capacity to soak up cycles: image rendering, cryptography, simulations. If some applications can be increasingly inefficient while others continue to demand all the speed the hardware can deliver, faster computers will mean that languages have to cover an ever wider range of efficiencies. We've seen this happening already. Current implementations of some popular new languages are shockingly wasteful by the standards of previous decades. This isn't just something that happens with programming languages. It's a general historical trend. As technologies improve, each generation can do things that the previous generation would have considered wasteful. People thirty years ago would be astonished at how casually we make long distance phone calls. People a hundred years ago would be even more astonished that a package would one day travel from Boston to New York via Memphis. I can already tell you what's going to happen to all those extra cycles that faster hardware is going to give us in the next hundred years. They're nearly all going to be wasted. I learned to program when computer power was scarce. I can remember taking all the spaces out of my Basic programs so they would fit into the memory of a 4K TRS-80. The thought of all this stupendously inefficient software burning up cycles doing the same thing over and over seems kind of gross to me. But I think my intuitions here are wrong. I'm like someone who grew up poor, and can't bear to spend money even for something important, like going to the doctor. Some kinds of waste really are disgusting. SUVs, for example, would arguably be gross even if they ran on a fuel which would never run out and generated no pollution. SUVs are gross because they're the solution to a gross problem. (How to make minivans look more masculine.) But not all waste is bad. Now that we have the infrastructure to support it, counting the minutes of your long-distance calls starts to seem niggling. If you have the resources, it's more elegant to think of all phone calls as one kind of thing, no matter where the other person is. There's good waste, and bad waste. I'm interested in good waste-- the kind where, by spending more, we can get simpler designs. How will we take advantage of the opportunities to waste cycles that we'll get from new, faster hardware? The desire for speed is so deeply engrained in us, with our puny computers, that it will take a conscious effort to overcome it. In language design, we should be consciously seeking out situations where we can trade efficiency for even the smallest increase in convenience. Most data structures exist because of speed. For example, many languages today have both strings and lists. Semantically, strings are more or less a subset of lists in which the elements are characters. So why do you need a separate data type? You don't, really. Strings only exist for efficiency. But it's lame to clutter up the semantics of the language with hacks to make programs run faster. Having strings in a language seems to be a case of premature optimization. If we think of the core of a language as a set of axioms, surely it's gross to have additional axioms that add no expressive power, simply for the sake of efficiency. Efficiency is important, but I don't think that's the right way to get it. The right way to solve that problem, I think, is to separate the meaning of a program from the implementation details. Instead of having both lists and strings, have just lists, with some way to give the compiler optimization advice that will allow it to lay out strings as contiguous bytes if necessary. Since speed doesn't matter in most of a program, you won't ordinarily need to bother with this sort of micromanagement. This will be more and more true as computers get faster. Saying less about implementation should also make programs more flexible. Specifications change while a program is being written, and this is not only inevitable, but desirable. The word "essay" comes from the French verb "essayer", which means "to try". An essay, in the original sense, is something you write to try to figure something out. This happens in software too. I think some of the best programs were essays, in the sense that the authors didn't know when they started exactly what they were trying to write. Lisp hackers already know about the value of being flexible with data structures. We tend to write the first version of a program so that it does everything with lists. These initial versions can be so shockingly inefficient that it takes a conscious effort not to think about what they're doing, just as, for me at least, eating a steak requires a conscious effort not to think where it came from. What programmers in a hundred years will be looking for, most of all, is a language where you can throw together an unbelievably inefficient version 1 of a program with the least possible effort. At least, that's how we'd describe it in present-day terms. What they'll say is that they want a language that's easy to program in. Inefficient software isn't gross. What's gross is a language that makes programmers do needless work. Wasting programmer time is the true inefficiency, not wasting machine time. This will become ever more clear as computers get faster. I think getting rid of strings is already something we could bear to think about. We did it in , and it seems to be a win; some operations that would be awkward to describe as regular expressions can be described easily as recursive functions. How far will this flattening of data structures go? I can think of possibilities that shock even me, with my conscientiously broadened mind. Will we get rid of arrays, for example? After all, they're just a subset of hash tables where the keys are vectors of integers. Will we replace hash tables themselves with lists? There are more shocking prospects even than that. The Lisp that McCarthy described in 1960, for example, didn't have numbers. Logically, you don't need to have a separate notion of numbers, because you can represent them as lists: the integer n could be represented as a list of n elements. You can do math this way. It's just unbearably inefficient. No one actually proposed implementing numbers as lists in practice. In fact, McCarthy's 1960 paper was not, at the time, intended to be implemented at all. It was a , an attempt to create a more elegant alternative to the Turing Machine. When someone did, unexpectedly, take this paper and translate it into a working Lisp interpreter, numbers certainly weren't represented as lists; they were represented in binary, as in every other language. Could a programming language go so far as to get rid of numbers as a fundamental data type? I ask this not so much as a serious question as as a way to play chicken with the future. It's like the hypothetical case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object-- here, an unimaginably inefficient implementation meeting unimaginably great resources. I don't see why not. The future is pretty long. If there's something we can do to decrease the number of axioms in the core language, that would seem to be the side to bet on as t approaches infinity. If the idea still seems unbearable in a hundred years, maybe it won't in a thousand. Just to be clear about this, I'm not proposing that all numerical calculations would actually be carried out using lists. I'm proposing that the core language, prior to any additional notations about implementation, be defined this way. In practice any program that wanted to do any amount of math would probably represent numbers in binary, but this would be an optimization, not part of the core language semantics. Another way to burn up cycles is to have many layers of software between the application and the hardware. This too is a trend we see happening already: many recent languages are compiled into byte code. Bill Woods once told me that, as a rule of thumb, each layer of interpretation costs a factor of 10 in speed. This extra cost buys you flexibility. The very first version of Arc was an extreme case of this sort of multi-level slowness, with corresponding benefits. It was a classic "metacircular" interpreter written on top of Common Lisp, with a definite family resemblance to the eval function defined in McCarthy's original Lisp paper. The whole thing was only a couple hundred lines of code, so it was very easy to understand and change. The Common Lisp we used, CLisp, itself runs on top of a byte code interpreter. So here we had two levels of interpretation, one of them (the top one) shockingly inefficient, and the language was usable. Barely usable, I admit, but usable. Writing software as multiple layers is a powerful technique even within applications. Bottom-up programming means writing a program as a series of layers, each of which serves as a language for the one above. This approach tends to yield smaller, more flexible programs. It's also the best route to that holy grail, reusability. A language is by definition reusable. The more of your application you can push down into a language for writing that type of application, the more of your software will be reusable. Somehow the idea of reusability got attached to object-oriented programming in the 1980s, and no amount of evidence to the contrary seems to be able to shake it free. But although some object-oriented software is reusable, what makes it reusable is its bottom-upness, not its object-orientedness. Consider libraries: they're reusable because they're language, whether they're written in an object-oriented style or not. I don't predict the demise of object-oriented programming, by the way. Though I don't think it has much to offer good programmers, except in certain specialized domains, it is irresistible to large organizations. Object-oriented programming offers a sustainable way to write spaghetti code. It lets you accrete programs as a series of patches. imposes constraining caste restrictions. In any academic field there are topics that are ok to work on and others that aren't. Unfortunately the distinction between acceptable and forbidden topics is usually based on how intellectual the work sounds when described in research papers, rather than how important it is for getting good results. The extreme case is probably literature; people studying literature rarely say anything that would be of the slightest use to those producing it. Though the situation is better in the sciences, the overlap between the kind of work you're allowed to do and the kind of work that yields good languages is distressingly small. (Olin Shivers has grumbled eloquently about this.) For example, types seem to be an inexhaustible source of research papers, despite the fact that static typing seems to preclude true macros-- without which, in my opinion, no language is worth using. The trend is not merely toward languages being developed as open-source projects rather than "research", but toward languages being designed by the application programmers who need to use them, rather than by compiler writers. This seems a good trend and I expect it to continue. Unlike physics in a hundred years, which is almost necessarily impossible to predict, I think it may be possible in principle to design a language now that would appeal to users in a hundred years. One way to design a language is to just write down the program you'd like to be able to write, regardless of whether there is a compiler that can translate it or hardware that can run it. When you do this you can assume unlimited resources. It seems like we ought to be able to imagine unlimited resources as well today as in a hundred years. What program would one like to write? Whatever is least work. Except not quite: whatever least work if your ideas about programming weren't already influenced by the languages you're currently used to. Such influence can be so pervasive that it takes a great effort to overcome it. You'd think it would be obvious to creatures as lazy as us how to express a program with the least effort. In fact, our ideas about what's possible tend to be so by whatever language we think in that easier formulations of programs seem very surprising. They're something you have to discover, not something you naturally sink into. One helpful trick here is to use the of the program as an approximation for how much work it is to write. Not the length in characters, of course, but the length in distinct syntactic elements-- basically, the size of the parse tree. It may not be quite true that the shortest program is the least work to write, but it's close enough that you're better off aiming for the solid target of brevity than the fuzzy, nearby one of least work. Then the algorithm for language design becomes: look at a program and ask, is there any way to write this that's shorter? In practice, writing programs in an imaginary hundred-year language will work to varying degrees depending on how close you are to the core. Sort routines you can write now. But it would be hard to predict now what kinds of libraries might be needed in a hundred years. Presumably many libraries will be for domains that don't even exist yet. If SETI@home works, for example, we'll need libraries for communicating with aliens. Unless of course they are sufficiently advanced that they already communicate in XML. At the other extreme, I think you might be able to design the core language today. In fact, some might argue that it was already mostly designed in 1958. If the hundred year language were available today, would we want to program in it? One way to answer this question is to look back. If present-day programming languages had been available in 1960, would anyone have wanted to use them? In some ways, the answer is no. Languages today assume infrastructure that didn't exist in 1960. For example, a language in which indentation is significant, like Python, would not work very well on printer terminals. But putting such problems aside-- assuming, for example, that programs were all just written on paper-- would programmers of the 1960s have liked writing programs in the languages we use now? I think so. Some of the less imaginative ones, who had artifacts of early languages built into their ideas of what a program was, might have had trouble. (How can you manipulate data without doing pointer arithmetic? How can you implement flow charts without gotos?) But I think the smartest programmers would have had no trouble making the most of present-day languages, if they'd had them. If we had the hundred-year language now, it would at least make a great pseudocode. What about using it to write software? Since the hundred-year language will need to generate fast code for some applications, presumably it could generate code efficient enough to run acceptably well on our hardware. We might have to give more optimization advice than users in a hundred years, but it still might be a net win. Now we have two ideas that, if you combine them, suggest interesting possibilities: (1) the hundred-year language could, in principle, be designed today, and (2) such a language, if it existed, might be good to program in today. When you see these ideas laid out like that, it's hard not to think, why not try writing the hundred-year language now? When you're working on language design, I think it is good to have such a target and to keep it consciously in mind. When you learn to drive, one of the principles they teach you is to align the car not by lining up the hood with the stripes painted on the road, but by aiming at some point in the distance. Even if all you care about is what happens in the next ten feet, this is the right answer. I think we can and should do the same thing with programming languages. I believe Lisp Machine Lisp was the first language to embody the principle that declarations (except those of dynamic variables) were merely optimization advice, and would not change the meaning of a correct program. Common Lisp seems to have been the first to state this explicitly. to Trevor Blackwell, Robert Morris, and Dan Giffin for reading drafts of this, and to Guido van Rossum, Jeremy Hylton, and the rest of the Python crew for inviting me to speak at PyCon. |
. |
Programming languages are used by software developers to design applications that can be run on computers. The choice of programming language depends on various factors including the “response time requirements of the system, time restriction of the project, and budget allocated for development and maintenance support” (Reilly, 2003).
Other determining factors are the requirement for coding the subroutines in varying languages and the choice between a compiled and an interpreted language (Reilly, 2003).
Object-oriented programming languages provide designers with a modern and powerful model with the capability of specifying data structures and operations that govern them. Examples of object-oriented programming (OOP) include Visual Basic, Python, C++ and Java. Despite the numerous benefits, OOP is still not as popular in business today like procedural programming language (Reilly, 2003).
Procedural programming languages like COBOL, FORTRAN and BASIC, use a simple paradigm whereby each program comprises a starting state, a list of operations, and an ending point. A section of the program can be split and re-used in the program to make the design work simple.
Procedural programming languages are used for business-oriented applications in commercial data processing (Khan, 2003). Common Business-Oriented Language (COBOL), for instance, is ideal for designing business applications since they can be easily integrated in Web-oriented business processes.
As a compiled language, COBOL uses efficient code that can be executed many times after the first compilation, which makes its programs more efficient and better performing than others.
The translation cost for compiled languages is incurred once, unlike interpreted languages which incur huge costs due to the several stages involved every time the application is run. This makes programming with COBOL cheaper than using other languages (Stern, Stern, & Ley, 2003).
COBOL was introduced in the 1960s. The entry of newer programming languages that make use of the latest computer features has led to transformation of COBOL for it to remain competitive. For instance, the development and deployment of the Net Express software package by Micro Focus Ltd has provided an ideal environment for COBOL coders. “This makes it easy and fast to build and modernize COBOL enterprise components and business applications for the Web, client/server platforms and Microsoft’s.
Net framework” (Khan, 2003). The application allows programmers to either modify or create COBOL programs without additional coding, which increases its use in business processes. Another development in COBOL was the development of a Technical Report (TR) that supports XML in COBOL applications.
Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a vital part for the future of Information Technology. XML permits end-users to access and manipulate intricate documents through COBOL applications on any PC.
Companies supporting COBOL, such as Micro Focus and IBM, prepared the TR to make so that COBOL could remain viable in business processes programming. The TR standardized the process of handling XML as both an input and output for COBOL applications (Khan, 2003).
KOBOL is another development for COBOL. It was developed by theKompany.com to permit programmers to build and manipulate their programs. “KOBOL uses IDE to compile COBOL code into executables that can run on various platforms” (Stern, Stern, & Ley, 2003). This allows COBOL programmers to continue making COBOL applications for business processes.
While there are newer programming languages that are more exciting than COBOL and other procedural programming languages, COBOL is still in use today in the business world. Consequently, COBOL is still studied in higher education institutions, in order to serve the existing and new markets.
Hence, the modifications of COBOL platforms to run on multiple platforms have prolonged the use of procedural programming languages on businesses today (Stern, Stern, & Ley, 2003).
Khan, M. B. (2003). COBOL. In Bidgoli, Hossein (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Information Systems , 2, 113-126.
Reilly, E. D. (2003). Milestones in Computer Science and Information Technology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Stern, N., Stern, R. A., & Ley, J. P. (2003). COBOL for the 21st Century 10th Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
IvyPanda. (2019, June 18). Procedural Programming Languages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/procedural-programming-language/
"Procedural Programming Languages." IvyPanda , 18 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/procedural-programming-language/.
IvyPanda . (2019) 'Procedural Programming Languages'. 18 June.
IvyPanda . 2019. "Procedural Programming Languages." June 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/procedural-programming-language/.
1. IvyPanda . "Procedural Programming Languages." June 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/procedural-programming-language/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Procedural Programming Languages." June 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/procedural-programming-language/.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Check these coding and programming essay topics: A comparative analysis of Java and C++ computer programming languages. The use of python programming language in modern technologies. Reasons why I have a passion for programming. The pros and cons of computer-assisted coding. Exploring computer coding as an art. Teaching coding to kids through ...
Of course, the most obvious option is to write a descriptive essay highlighting the features of Java platform editions: - Java Standard Edition (Java SE). It allows one to develop Java applications and ensures the essential functionality of the programming language; - Java Enterprise Edition (Java EE).
These processes are an integral part of the web services development (Beazley 67). An example of Python web frameworks is the Full stack frameworks, which consists of high-level components such as Django, Grok, Pylons and TurboGears. Python language can support other full stack web frameworks.
Can Python Write an Essay? Python, being a programming language, is primarily designed to process and manipulate data, automate tasks, and build applications. While Python can assist in automating certain aspects of the essay-writing process, it is important to note that it cannot independently generate an entire essay from scratch.
What is Python? Executive Summary
I wrote a programming language. Here's how you can, too.
Essay Writing Process . Writing a programming essay is no different from other types of essays. Once you get to know the basic structure, the rest of the procedure will be a walk in the park. Write an Outline . An outline is the most critical part of every writing assignment. When you write one, you're actually preparing an overall structure ...
The python programming language is one of a computer's most highly readable languages. Know How to Write an Essay Using it. The python programming language is one of a computer's most highly readable languages, a major feature that has made it a go-to tool for writers. The python language uses clear English keywords, while other languages ...
In essay writing, this means refining your language and ensuring your argument is sound. In programming, this is similar to debugging the code and making improvements for better efficiency. Final Review: Finally, conduct a final review of your work. For essay writing, this includes proofreading and checking the formatting.
The first essay is about undefined parts of C. That essay, along with this primer on C obfuscation that I also found on Hacker News today, is enough to make anyone run screaming away from the language. And yet, in practice I don't run into any of these pitfalls and find writing C kinda pleasant. I have an atypical amount of freedom, and that ...
You can complete your papers on time by doing this, of course. Still, if you want to learn programming alone by practicing your Python skills, you can use this as an opportunity to write an essay whilst using this language. It is no longer just developers who use Python. It's simpler, which makes it great for newbie developers, as well as ...
An introduction to programming languages essay shows how these languages are instructions written to perform specific tasks. The most common examples of programming/coding languages are Ruby, Perl, COBOL, ALGOL, Python, Java, C, C++, C#, JavaScript, R, and PHP. Every essay about programming languages must also detail the common types of ...
Top 15 Programming Languages Worth Learning. Intriguingly, Kotlin, a relatively recent addition to the programming scene, secured an official endorsement from tech giant Google as the preferred language for Android app development. This critical endorsement underscores the dynamic nature of the programming landscape in 2023.
Words: 503 | Page: 1 | 3 min read. Published: Jan 4, 2019. Python is an excessive-degree, interpreted, interactive and item-oriented scripting language. Python is designed to be especially readable. It uses English keywords regularly in which as different languages use punctuation, and it has fewer syntactical buildings than different languages.
A programming language is a set of English-like instructions that includes a set of rules for putting the instructions together to create commands. A translator changes the English-like commands into numeric code that the computer can understand. The most common type of translator is a compiler. The compiler is program that reads English-like ...
I am writing an essay about a problem that I had in a program that I was creating, of course, I managed to fix the problem, but I am wondering how much detail I should put into describing the actual code. The audience that this essay is going to be presented to doesn't know anything about programming.
Java is the best programming language Essay. I consider Java as the best programming language due to its small language vocabulary, portability and simplicity. Java has a small and regular vocabulary; a programmer can easily master and grasp .Any computer program written in Java can run and execute on any operating system hence compatibility ...
The most commonly used programming languages are Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Java and Php. The first most commonly used programming language is Hypertext Markup Language, or commonly known as HTML. HTML is the standard mark-up language used to create web pages. According to Shanon (2007), HTML is a language created for computer to read ...
100 Words Essay on Coding What is Coding? Coding is like giving instructions to a computer. Just as you tell a friend to pass a ball, you tell a computer what to do by writing down steps in a language it understands. These languages are called programming languages, and some popular ones are Python, Java, and HTML.
The Hundred-Year Language. April 2003. (This essay is derived from a keynote talk at PyCon 2003.) It's hard to predict what life will be like in a hundred years. There are only a few things we can say with certainty. We know that everyone will drive flying cars, that zoning laws will be relaxed to allow buildings hundreds of stories tall, that ...
Object-oriented programming languages provide designers with a modern and powerful model with the capability of specifying data structures and operations that govern them. Examples of object-oriented programming (OOP) include Visual Basic, Python, C++ and Java. Despite the numerous benefits, OOP is still not as popular in business today like ...