Related
My company is planning to build a simulation tool for processing (beverage) and we're currently looking at a half-baked system written in Xojo. I had personally never heard of this language and would appreciate it if anyone could give a quick assessment.
We have no in-house Xojo competence at all and are of course reluctant to bring in a system that would require a big investment in know-how for just one system.
So, we're now looking at our options: Port it to a language we're good at (C# or Java) or continue development in Xojo while building internal skills for the language.
So, what are the big pro's and con's with Xojo?
Cheers
Xojo has been around since the late 1990s, then named RealBasic. Its strength lies in its ability to make native looking and behaving apps for many platforms, mainly OS X but also Win and even Linux. The dev community is fairly small, though. But the company managed to stay in business all this time and isn't looking to end it any time soon.
The language is fairly simple and easy to learn, using long known concepts (its design was based on Visual Basic).
Knowing Java, it should be easy to grasp the language. The bigger hurdle is probably getting familiar with its libary. Many things are much simpler to accomplish in Xojo vs Java, though.
Call me lazy, but that's what I like about Xojo. I also program ObjC in Xcode, but for those little tools that just need to work quickly, Xojo is superior for whipping out a program quickly that that has a decent UI and works on many platforms with little to no tweaks.
If you need x-platform support, give it a try, for sure. If you only need the app to run on a single platform, and if you have skills with other dev systems, I'd advise against starting out with Xojo, to avoid the risks you get when going with such a small company that's offering closed-source software.
In your particular case where you have already a half-working solution, I suggest you take a few days to familiarize yourself to get a feeling for it (you can use Xojo for free as long as you don't build standalone apps with it). It's overall fairly stable and I'm still using a 3-year old version most of the time to develop and build my apps. So, even if Xojo should go out of business suddenly, I'd not be too worried. As long as you stick with the simple functionality (e.g. not use unique features such as XojoScript), you can still convert the app to another language later, but there's also a fair chance you never have to.
If you are looking for someone to take a look at your Xojo project I'd recommend posting on the Xojo Find A Developer page at http://www.xojo.com/support/consultants.php where all Pro developers get it. The consultants that want to talk to you about it will then contact you. (Full disclosure: we, BKeeney Software, are on the list and would be happy to help you figure it all out).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been wanting to get into a pure-OO language for a while now, but I'm put off by the fact that they all seem to demand an IDE and I can't find any good tutorials that aren't in video format.
I'm happy to use an IDE later, but I don't want to learn the language through one. What I'm looking for is a simple console interpreter or command-line compiler such as gcc, ghc, ghci and the python IDLE (yes, it's an IDE, but it's so minimalist that it may as well just be a commandline interpretter). I find that I learn a language faster, better and more comprehensively when I'm not trying to grapple with an IDE at the same time. So please, don't tell me that squeak is the only way to do it :P
I'm also looking for tutorials that are presented textually rather than visually. Again, I learn faster when I can stare at a page and read someone's sentance over and over tossing and turning it in my mind rather than having to pause a video, take it back 10 seconds, press play, do it again, and again, and again.
I'm interested in various languages with various degrees of OO-purity, and I plan to learn them all at some point. Any of the smalltalk dialects interest me, Self (an extreme prototype-oriented version of smalltalk (Very interesting, the more radical the better imo)), strongtalk, vanilla smalltalk (or some implementation which is as vanilla as you can get).
I'm interested in Eiffel as well, the code snippets I've seen make it seem very elegant and I've read that it actually was very innovative (introduced code-contracts and other such things). However I would give preference to a language from the smalltalk camp over one from the Eiffel side because Eiffel at face value seems to be a hybrid between OO and imperative programming. Similarly I'd rather avoid Scala (Hybrid OO and functional) and other hybrid languages. So no C#, Java, C++, D, python etc etc etc. I'm not dismissing these languages because I believe they are bad, it's just that I'm setting out to learn pure-OO and those languages are hybrid OO: Not really what I'm looking for.
Also, would anyone be able to recommend the official books? For smalltalk there's the "Blue book" AKA "Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation". And for Eiffel there's "Eiffel: The Language". I ask because in my experience you can pick up so much by reading books written by the author of the language (see K&R the C programming language), and by reading books in general.
So yes, my questions: What pure-OO language would be good to start off with? How would I go about learning it without having to use an IDE? And is there an associated book written by the language author(s)?
It is not helpful to learn Smalltalk as just another language. You would be missing the point entirely.
Smalltalk's graphical environment is not just an IDE. The core of the system is simply objects. The interface provides various ways to create objects and interact with them. The language is just a convenient way to create messages to the objects. It is secondary to the objects themselves.
In other OO languages, you write your program, then you run it, which creates objects in memory. Not so in Smalltalk. You create objects in memory (e.g. class objects) and then send messages to e.g. add methods. But a class object is only created once, not every time you "run your program".
There is no such thing as "your program", in fact. There is no "main". It's just a world of objects, some longer-lived, some temporary. In fact, in the system there are objects that were created 30 years ago. Literally. The objects are just frozen to disk as a memory dump (a file which we call "image") and unfrozen later (possibly on a different machine).
That image, the world of objects, is the primary artifact in Smalltalk. There is a sources file, yes, but that's just a database of text snippets to not take up so much RAM. You cannot edit this file by hand (objects in the image use absolute file offsets into the sources file). You cannot re-create the system from the sources file - the system was bootstrapped a long time ago and from then on only modified.
It's true that superficially the Smalltalk GUI looks just like another IDE. No coincidence - Eclipse was originally written by Smalltalkers in Smalltalk. But there is the crucial difference that in regular IDEs you just manipulate text files. A text editor is a valid alternative for that. In Smalltalk, the GUI manipulates objects in memory. A text editor can not do that.
And as for what Smalltalk to use, I would recommend Squeak. Very friendly community, very nice environment, and subscribing to the original Smalltalk vision of creating a great personal computing environment for everyone.
As someone who has went through process of learning Smalltalk (at least to a decent degree), I can say that you are taking harder and riskier path, in a sense that some things may take much longer to clear up, or never actually do.
But, if you insist, you can download GNU Smalltalk, for which no GUI is a norm. It also contains all sources of the system written in Smalltalk in a chunk format and you can open your text editor on them and enjoy while slowly reading through the guts of the system.
You could also startup any other Smalltalk, like Pharo, and just stick with a workspace window - this is your equivalent of command line interpreter.
Pharo also includes ProfStef quick interactive tutorial on Smalltalk, which combines text instructions and evaluating Smalltalk expressions.
As for reading, there is Pharo By Example - free book that you can browse, download or buy hardcopy.
There is also a collection of free books in which I would recommend "Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation" By Adele Goldberg and David Robson, if you are interested in the innards and detail of the language.
Late David N. Smith Smalltalk FAQ is also exelent resource.
So, there you go. And take advice, and give in to the Smalltalk IDE as soon as possible, since it makes understanding of Smalltalk much, much, faster.
Richard Gabriel gave a talk recently about a paradigm shift that occurred in the programming language community in the early 90s. He claims that most experts today are incapable of understanding many of the papers from the 80s. He has evidence to back this up. This was the first time he gave the talk, and he expects to give it many times, so I imagine that many parts of the talk will change. At first, he described this paradigm shift as engineering -> science, but then he described it as system -> language. I think that describing it as a shift from systems thinking to language thinking is a better description.
Richard Gabriel is a Lisp guy. (I'm a Smalltalk guy). Lisp is like Smalltalk in that there isn't a clear boundary between the language and the library that it uses. Arithmetic and control flow are in the libraries, not the language. (Well, Lisp has some in the language and some in the libraries, while Smalltalk has it all in the libraries, except that the compiler cheats and hard codes some of them, so there isn't really much difference in the end.) In Lisp, a program is an S-expression, and editing programs is editing S-expressions. In Smalltalk, a program is a collection of objects, and editing programs is editing objects. When you are programming, you are building a system, and you program with the system.
System thinking is different from language thinking. Language thinkers want a precise description of a language. They want a book that describes the whole thing, or (if they are academics) they want a formal semantics for the language. But system thinkers know that as soon as they start to use the system, it will change. They want to understand how the system works, but are prepared to look at the system itself to figure out the details.
These are two ways of thinking, and there are advantages and disadvantages of each. Smalltalk is a wonderful example of systems thinking. I think all software developers should know at least one system that exemplifies systems thinking. Lisp is good. Forth is another old example. Naturally, I think that Smalltalk is great and am happy to help people learn it but I think the importance of learning systems thinking is more important than the particular system you learn.
Unfortunately, learning a system is harder than learning a language. You have to do more than just learn the syntax, you have to learn the libraries, the patterns of naming and of coding, and usually the tools. (Which, if this is a system, are extensible.) That is one of the advantages of language thinking. But systems thinking has long-term advantages, because once you taylor the system to your needs then you can become very productive.
To lean smalltalk syntax, you need to read ONE page of text (see Syntax section on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk).
Now, to learn a smalltalk libraries and how to use them, you need to use browser not the text editor, otherwise your will just waste a lot of time.
I think that it is like factor of 10 difference in time, between trying to understand some code by reading in textual format and navigating it using browser and! debugger.
In smalltalk system a living objects could tell a lot about themselves and help you learn how to use them much faster than if you look at it as a static chunks of text, because you won't grasp the idea at all.
I've been playing with Squeak Smalltalk (and its close cousins, Pharo and Cuis) for a while now. There's no better way to learn Smalltalk than by using the system already provided.
I've devised a series of short youtube tutorials ranging in length from 50 seconds to 15 minutes that show how to take advantage of Squeak's ultra-cool features within a few minutes of first starting the system.
In fact, the very first line of code demos the OOP-ness of Squeak. Squeak from the very start
Python is a pure OOP . Actually this is an easy mistake that newcomers make when they come to python.
Python like smalltalk follows the mantra "Everything is an object". So everything inside python is an object, including built-in types. The difference is that python unlike smalltalk and Java does not force OOP as it allows procedural programming. And this is the trap, it easy to assume that makes python less OOP , but being a snake, is so devlish that does not tell you that even functions are objects ;)
http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/programming_books/python_programming/python_ch10s04.html
Going back to smalltalk its IDE is the huge deal here, contrary what other smalltalker may believe. If you like me are heavily disappointed with how non flexible IDEs are you are going to love Squeak's IDE. The IDE goes a great deal making easy to navigate through all the libraries and making you understand what , where and why , something happens. I cant see the benefit of using a text editor. But you can, with file ins and file outs. But doing so you cripple smalltalk into becoming as efficient as other programming languages ;)
I am only studying squeak and pharo for a week now but even for me as a beginner the benefits of the IDE is obvious from the first minute.
The fact that code is fragmented into easy to digest methods, those methods grouped into protocols , protocols grouped to our familiar Classes and Classes grouped to packages. Hence the code is so well organized that I never feel lost, everything belongs somewhere, everything is just a click away, everything is inspectable, browseable , you just select right click and sends you there. And it shows you exactly the code you need rarely more than 10 lines long. This is the IDE. Why would you prefer a text editor that will expose to information that you don't need , don't care and is likely to confuse you ?
Then everything is inside a single image , not a collection of files, your code, your libraries, system libraries , even the language itself. Everything is at your grasp, waiting for you, begging you to test, modify it, use it and abuse it. You are part of the language and the language is part of your, if something does not fit your thinking, change it. This is the IDE. Why you want to go back to the disconnected way of files and folders ?
Then you are start being afraid with all this power, all this flexibility its not unlikely that you will do something that could completely destroy the language and the libraries. Its possible , mistakes can and will happen. Again the IDE jumps in offering you a hand of help, every change is stored in a local cvs system, every change is categorized, stored and monitored any time. No lousy undos and any kind of other nonsense . What you get is old , mature well tested version control. You can change back exactly what you want any time, nothing is lost, no mistake is irreversible.
And if you don't trust you hard driver , the vcs extends online to squeaksource . And does it let you at the mercy of command line ? Hell no . You are offered the simple yet efficient Monticello browser , which will make sure you install and unistall with no conflicts .
And of course you don't want your software to have bugs , do you ? Unit Testing tool is offered to make sure your code is reliable , stable and does exactly what you want how you want it. Again a beautiful yet brilliant GUI is utilized to make complicate tasks a button away.
And because none is perfect , there will be time you will come against the dreadful error. Are you left alone ? You guessed right , a tool again is offered. The debugger. You don't need to call it, you don't need to setup it , you don't even need to figure out how it works. Like all other tools, is simple in design yet sophisticated. Not only it will spot the error , not only will tell you what you did wrong , not only will navigate through back to most basic language elements that trigger the error offering a unique perspective on how exactly the language behave like nothing I have seen before, it also allows you to do live coding. Live coding is the ability to code a program while its code runs. Isn't that impressive and infinitely useful ?
Finally , maybe you are one of those people impossible to please, maybe you still find flaws , omissions and thinks you simple don't like. The IDE is written in smalltalk , smalltalk is written in smalltalk , and the IDE can edit itself and the language, there is nothing you can't change besides some very basic functionality of the language and the VM that is compiled C. And you will guess right if you think you can use all the above tools to do exactly that.
And the tools don't stop here , smalltalk might be not that popular as other languages but it has been here for a very long time and it has some very enthusiastic programmers that love to contribute. And frankly with such an amazing IDE and such a well designed language , while with other languages contributing to them might seem a challenge, in case of smalltalk the challenge is to resist the temptation not to contribute as the IDE makes it so easy.
By the time others still code you will finish your code and actually understand what have you done and why. Thats not a small thing at all . I wish Python had such a good IDE or any other language. But the only thing that comes abit close, from my experience , is Delphi. And even in the case of Delphi I still prefer squeak and pharo.
What I find annoying about other IDEs is that they are not IDES at all, they are nothing more than glorified editors, locked, non flexible , non editable (Unless you are willing to use another programming language and navigate through tons of source code) . Squeak , Pharo and all other smalltalk dialects offer a real elegant IDE offering you really useful tools. Other IDEs better take a deep a look at smalltalk and really understand what it means to be an IDE.
Saying all those good things, smalltalk is far from perfect. And I think its biggest weakness and flaw is lack of some enjoyable and useful documentation that can help beginners jump in head first. Squeak By Example as well Pharo By Example has been a big disappointment for me. They both are still two extremely important books that provide a extremely valuable insight in both platforms , but the quality of documentation is from mediocre to bad at times. The main reason is both books follow a non noob friendly approach. First they send you deep diving in the IDE , introducing you from chapter 1 , to debugger and even unit testing !!! For me this a big mistake, and even though I am far from new to programming had to struggle to follow up what was explained. Then the book itself , lets a lot of unanswered questions. For example the explanation of instance vs class variables is not enough, I would prefer several example that not only show the how but also the why . Several areas of the book are also full of gaps or just hard to follow.
My life got a lot easier when I found this link http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html and from there I downloaded "Smalltalk by Example" which unlike the other book not only it does what it says in the title but makes no assumption on who you are and what you know. I can only highly recommend it. I read that the other books there that are offered freely are very good as well, I will certainly download and read all of them eventually.
Alot of help has been also #squeak at irc.freenode.net, people there has been answering my questions and helping me understand.
Squeak wiki, is ok but not enough, its also not very well organised, and I dont like that comments and discussions appear inside the wiki documentation. So documentation generally can be abit of a struggle for the begginer and certainly Smalltalk IS NOT AN EASY programming language to learn. I hear many smalltalkers say otherwise and I could not disagree more, when I compare smalltalk with python is like night and day. BUT ! Once understand smalltalk , it become much easier to program in it then any other programming language I have learned so far, and I have learned most of them. So in the end I think Smalltalk is a clear win , I also love the FFI library that lets you call any C library with ease, which unleashes serious power for smalltalk.
I dont think you need to learn the language first and then the IDE, its actually a very bad idea for the simple fact that the IDE helps you understand the language and its libraries and any type of code in it. Language and IDE is like brother and sister, yin and yang.
Well, if you decide to learn Eiffel a good book would be "Object-Oriented Software Construction" by Betrand Meyer (he created the Eiffel programming language).
The book provides great insight into object-oriented design using Eiffel. In my humble opinion is one of the best OO books around.
I have wonder that many big applications (e.g. social websites such as facebook) are build with many languages into its platform.
They usually start with AJAX browser support, then scale down to PHP scripting, then move towards a powrful OOP technologie such as Java or .NET, and finally a primitive language to increase performance in crucial operations such as C.
My question is how should I determinate the edge of the layers between languages. When PHP, when Java, when C and so on. And the other question is if should those languages integrate in a vertcal fashion for simplicity and maintanance, or could it be cases when you decide to program on module of your app in Java and the other in native C.
What are the context variables that push me to move to a better performance language? (e.g. concurrency issues due increase of users)
Don't tell me that PHP overlaps .NET and Java Technologies. In a starter point it does, but when the network is overload you start seeing the diferences. I mean how can I achieve Multithreading in PHP as in Java with the same performance. The thing it's hard to answer my wuestion is becasue there is not so much reading about this. You maybe find some good books covering PHP, but few telling how when and why integrate different languages.
Each language was created for different purposes, Python is strong with string operations, Perl very powerful in batch scripting, PHP a very reliable application web server, C the mother of most popular languages.
Best,
Demian.
On one end of the scale, you move to a higher performance language whenever your profiling and measurements tell you that you have a bottleneck that can't be fixed with better algorithms, data structures, or other optimisation.
At the other end, you move to a higher level language (ie. more abstraction, better libraries) whenever your management allow you to do so. ;)
I believe most teams simply use what they are best familiar with.
There are also questions of licensing that can influence the decision.
That is, if you're talking about technologies that compare to each other and solve the problem on the same level (for example ASP.NET/JSF/JSP/PHP...). But you can't compare .NET with C++ for example, they are meant to solve different problems on different abstraction levels.
My criterion for any programming language is "does it help me to get the job done or does it just get in the way?" If the latter, then it's time to move on.
From an economical point of view the answer is easy: on a regular basis just look what will be cheaper. Either continue with the current technology and maybe stretch the envelope a bit more. Or switch to something new. When you compare the two alternatives the cost of the investment already done is not important anymore since you've already spent that money/effort. You only have to look ahead: cost of licenses, education, etc.
Of course this is easier said then done, but just sitting down with a few people, thinking about it, and maybe try to come up with some numbers already helps a lot. I have seen too many projects that continued with technology that really wasn't suited for the job anymore.
Also hard numbers don't tell the whole story. There will be resistance because of unfamiliar technology, experts who are losing their status, etc.
Identify the bottleneck
Solve bottleneck
Go to 1
I'm sure you can imagine that step 2 is the one where decisions like "What programming language do we use" and "where do we put the coffee machine" come into play. That's the basic rule.
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.
Lately I've been job hunting, and for the most part, they would ask me what type of IDE I like to use.
Now, I usually answer with;
Well it all depends on what language I'm developing it in. If it's Java then it would be Eclipse, if AS3 then either Flash CS4 or Flex Builder 3. For HTML, CSS, PHP, and Javascript, I prefer to use PsPad. (almost identical to Notepad+ or textmage).
Now why is it that they always seem to become immediately disgusted with the fact that I said PSPad? Truth be told, I don't like to use DreamWeaver because I feel like it's bloated. I mean to each his own I guess ... but I've tried using it and I honestly work faster with PSPad.
Should I start using Dreamweaver just to put in my resume?
Theoretical Advice
It's quite reasonable not to like IDE's, though you do need to acknowledge their usefulness, and everyone has their own most efficient ways of working, which makes sense.
Practical Advice
You can't deal with recruitment agents logically, I'm afraid. You need to check their checkboxes, and get past them, to talk to someone real.
Once you get into a real interview with a programmer, be honest about everything, about why you don't like IDE's (especially DreamWeaver) and then you can just hope for the appropriate outcome.
But with recruitment agents you need to appreciate that they don't understand anything about our industry; and you typically need to give them the answers they want.
I'd say your are "familiar" with DreamWeaver and leave it at that.
Maybe they don't know what PSPad is - I didn't. As for Dreamweaver, I would actually look down on somebody who uses Dreamweaver. It's much better to be able to code from scratch.
And to answer your question - it's definitely not wrong to not prefer a single IDE for everything. You should use whatever tools you feel comfortable with, and if it's different for each language, then so be it.
No, just like it's not wrong to prefer:
Horses over cars;
Kerosene lamps over electrical lighting;
Aqueducts over water pipes;
Storing food in a cold cellar instead of an "icebox";
Punch cards over keyboards and visual displays;
and so on.
Sucks that we have to go through people who care not about the programmer but the programs we use!
I mean I think I lost a few chances just by trying to explain that I am decent with HTML and CSS but don't use Dreamweaver (because I cant afford it).
Though I am not that worried, I did eventually stumble across a person who does understand these things and love working for him. So no it's not wrong, you're just unlucky to have come across wrong recruiters.
Good luck finding a job though!
PS It doesn't take more than 10 minutes to get familiar with an IDE, so always a plus to try out some (so you're not completely lost later).
One way to spin such answers is to make yourself the expert. So you could say something like, "I'm familiar with Dreamweaver, but once I got really good at coding HTML, CSS etc. I found it more efficient to just use a really fast and simple text editor like PSPad."
I used the same trick after I worked in C++ and was applying for a Java job. In that case, it went like this, "Well, the nice thing about having started in C++ is that it's such a rich and low level language that once you've done that, Java seems really easy by comparison."
The recruiter doesn't know what DreamWeaver is -- they just know what a commission is. Show them you'll make them one by selling yourself to their principle and they'll send you out to interview more often than not.
Look: when you're job hunting the person who is looking at your resume is either a:
Human Resource person (Needs a person to fill a position or just interview)
Head Hunter (Needs a body to fill a job so they can get their placement pay)
IT Manager (Needs a qualified soul for the best price).
Depending on the person interviewing you over the phone or in person they are just trying to get the best candidate for a position. Sometimes they have prepared questions to see how much you know, how you think and do you match up to your resume.
I went to a .NET code camp once and a head hunter was asked how one goes about showing the interviewer their experience. The head hunter said show them your work:
Bring a laptop with samples of your work.
Print out code sample.
Direct the interview to a website with samples of your work.
Things like this get you past the IDE question real quick.
As silky alluded to above, it's probably a simple mechanism in use by the HR agency to filter out candidates. If you're not using an IDE on the selected list, you're filtered.
For me, when interviewing, I would find somebody who says they use VIM or Emacs as their IDE to be a more advanced developer than perhaps somebody using Notepad.
Last time a CTO asked me what I use, I immediately said "Emacs, of course". He said, "OK, now I'm interested!". I've been working there since.
(I don't know why PSPad would be any worse than Dreamweaver or Eclipse. I find all IDEs hard to really customize. Everybody I work with has gobs of elisp, much of it shared, to make it much more productive for our project.)
Maybe you're talking to the wrong people for the kind of job you want. Where are you finding these "they" who ask you this?
It's certainly not worse than depending on one.
I use EMACS as my primary programming environment. It has a few big advantages:
It's available practically everywhere.
You can use it without having a window system installed.
You can use it over SSH.
It lets you edit multiple files at the same time.
It understands most programming languages.
You can run subshells.
Oh, you can read your email from within it, too.
This question has no good answer. It depends on the culture of the place you're interviewing for. At my current job, I play up my Unix experience and can impress other folks that also enjoy non IDE toolsets. vi, one liner scripts, etc. At my former gig, people were enamored with Visual Basic, and thought the command line was horrific. I'll bet if you were interviewing for the company that develops PSPad you would not have had the same result. ;-)
At work we write a small to moderate amount of scripts to aid us in normal development. We have some people that are more comfortable in python, some in perl, some in php, etc...
Sometimes I think it is best to let people work in a language they are most comfortable with. This can mean that sometimes people can do a better job on a script (as they know more tricks in one language). It can also lead to less development time per script.
Other times I think that we would benefit the most from standardizing so that there might be more shared libraries and so that we don't get into the situation of "I can't work on that script because I don't know python".
Do you think that we should standardize or let people choose for each script they write?
I would be inclined to let people choose, and hire people who are comfortable at learning new things. Gaining basic fluency with almost any language should be easy enough for a good developer. And for small scripts where the original author isn't far away, it's even easier.
The second part of the above is the hard part, of course. But you'll end up with a more flexible, more knowledgeable team.
I would advocate standardizing on a couple languages. "Thou shalt use either Python, or Perl, or Ruby. Not Rexx, nor PHP, nor NewBatch, nor aught other, for thy brethren ought to be able to read thine writing without undue despair or cutting of their skins".
My opinion is that it is just like any other development environment. Do you standardize on one development language? Why? The same should be true for your scripting environment. Not only do I lean toward standardizing on a specific language I think you should standardize all the same things that you are hopefully doing in your programming environment (naming conventions, coding style, etc). Of course there are counter arguments and there will occasionally be exceptions, but hopefully they would be few and for valid reasons.
Like everything there are upsides and downsides.
As a developer I dislike being limited by "official company standards." More often than not these rules tend to constrain and stifle.
I think what is most important is to always have two people who can both read and write a script language on staff so one person can go on vacation or be sick without holding up the works.
For major components of your system it is probably better to standardize on a single language - as much as it pains me to say so.
I think the right place to ask this question is with your own team.
Your team should form a consensus as to whether or not they want a common platform or whether they want the freedom to choose the right tool for the job. There is no single best answer to this question any more than there is a single best answer for "what's the best scripting language".
Certainly there are advantages to each approach. If every team member is free to choose their own language, they might be more productive and your business will reap the benefit. On the other hand, if someone writes a critical tool in a language only she knows and then something happens to her (illness, new job, etc) you can be stuck with a single point of failure that no one knows how to fix.
So long as the languages in question are used for scripting, I agree with other commenters that it should be left to the devteam, and different languages should be tolerated in most cases.
If the language is used for your main codebase, you had better standardize on one.
If some developers complain about a script not written in their language, encourage them to learn it, particularly if it's one of the widespread ones like Ruby, Perl, et al.
No.
Your dev environment is hopefully a living entity that changes and is cultivated. New abilities (scripting languages) should be able to be accommodated, and older places that haven't been visited for years will someday get obviated by tools, or revisited from time to time and an evaluation will take place. Hopefully the dev scripts are a minor amount of development and automation. Chances are the team will drift towards a set of standards (ant, python, etc).
Per Project, anything checked in should probably follow a rule of minimal complexity.
Your team will be gone some day, and someone else will have to come in and maintain this. Please don't make them learn 5 languages or they are going to look for your names in the source code an hunt you down.
When we've picked up hack projects like that, we've pretty much considered the creators complete fools and made fun of them. They couldn't bother themselves to learn one scripting language???
That said, if you don't check it in--who cares?