How can you ensure that programming languages are accessible to all software engineering stakeholders?

Based on my experience, selecting the right programming language is a balance between matching the ideal tool to a specific task. Some languages shine in readability which facilitates understanding among more stakeholders, while others are tailored to performance or security. Ideally, the best approach is to align the project's unique requirements and the expertise of the team to ensure the correct blend of efficiency and accessibility.

In my backend development experience, key evaluation criteria include final product speed, RAM usage, development speed, computer or human focus, cross-platform compatibility, speed of changes and testing. For high computational tasks, opt for compiled languages (e.g., C/C++). In memory-restricted environments, use assembler or Objective-C. Quick development with deadlines benefits from high-level languages like Java, though speed may be sacrificed. C++ and C# are ideal for complex interfaces. Minimal user interaction tasks favour fast languages like C. For multi-platform support, consider Java, C#, or C++. Constantly changing projects are better managed with high-level languages like Java and C++, which offer faster block processing.

1.Define project requirements, including performance, scalability, and portability. 2.Prioritize code readability and choose languages that match your project's needs. 3.Consider security, compatibility & your team's skills. 4.Involve stakeholders and assess community support. 5.Reevaluate your choice as your project evolves to ensure it aligns with your goals and constraints

In my experience it is achievable by first evaluating the need of the project. Some languages may have support for some features that may be difficult to achieve with other programming languages. Secondly, the team knowledge and time investment in ramping up to new technology should be balanced. In the end clear and extensive documentation about team coding guidelines and using ide / platform features(such as a formatter) to enforce those guidelines.

As per my experience the selection of any programming language should depend on 1. Company size and budget 2. Project scope, long term as well short term. 3. Availability of open source libraries or frameworks. 4. LTS of framework being used. e.g. for a startup growing at very fast speed then someone should select a programming language with a framework which is scalable on the go, in such case scale on the go is more important than performance of language. In other cases, suppose a company is well established and has a good budget then they may not prefer any existing framework but can develop in-house framework architecture. In such cases programming language with best performance according to project scope should be selected.

Here are a few points I would like to mention : 1. Coding standards in software development enhance code quality, ensuring consistency for readability, maintainability, and collaboration. 2. Established standards like PEP 8 for Python or custom guidelines create clearer, understandable, and easily maintainable code. 3. Consistency in naming, indentation, formatting, and documentation minimizes errors and fosters efficient team communication. 4. Embracing coding standards cultivates accessibility and forms the basis for sustainable software development. Following these guidelines avoids common errors, improves readability, maintainability, and reusability, and fosters efficient collaboration within the development team.

In my experience, coding standards are the bedrock of accessibilty. Every programmer should stick to writing code that adheres to the conventions associated with their programming language of choice. It makes life easier for everyone reading their work. For example in C which is the language I use for most of my work. Coding standards like using uppercase for MACRO names helps me quickly trace definitions that are outside the source file.

Following coding standards is like speaking a common language within your development team. Here's the thing: When everyone adheres to established coding standards, it becomes easier for team members to read, understand, and contribute to the codebase. This consistency does not only enhances collaboration but also ensures that software is maintainable and scalable, benefiting all stakeholders.

I think as the team size grows, this becomes extremely difficult to maintain as the knowledgeable individuals can’t review every pull request/change raised by different contributors. These things need to be enforced using the existing tools before which a contributor cannot merge his code to the main branch of repository. This is an extremely important step in a long run and if not enforced, code can absolutely turn into a waste.

Documentation is an essential way to quickly jump into code you’re unfamiliar with. However a robust standard can often lose scope of the point of commenting. While your code should try to be self-explanatory, there are points when you’ll have to explain what or why you’re doing something. If you can’t summarize a chunk of code in one inline comment it’s time to consider making a new function with its own header. Here’s my goto format when using JavaScript: /** * Explain function in one line * @param {<type>} <name> - Explantion * @return {<type>} - Explanation **/

When writing documentation for technical people, imagine yourself as a newbie to the project and make it concise, but precise. Some of the things I like to see explained: ? a working way to build/run/test the project ? how parts of the system are connected ? parts of the code that are not self-explanatory ? the rationale behind architectural decisions

This is a debated topic because the code should be readable by itself. However, a good documentation that provides general context into the 'why' of the different parts of the code makes things much better.

Documentation is important yes, but people should be cautious when writing documentation elements inside source code (comments). In my perspective, comment should explain briefly the 'what' and if necessary the 'why' of any particular piece of code. If they also need to explain the 'how', then this is a sign that this piece of code is not clean enough and needs refactoring. There are some exceptions though, for example in mathematical software where a piece of code might represent the implementation of a complex algorithm.

Comprehensive documentation and clear comments within the code are essential. They bridge the gap between developers and other stakeholders, such as project managers and designers, by explaining how the code works, why certain decisions were made, and how to interact with various components. This also in the long run helps with debugging and feature revamps.

I might have an issue here with the word accessibility and what it is meant in this context. While Abstraction is a core tool, and, yes, essential, in many programming paradigms, it does NOT make code easier to understand. In fact I would say that abstraction often makes code harder. Yes we can hide complexity behind it, but then following the execution of logic becomes difficult for the newcomer. Entry points become elusive, and end with an event dispatched into the void. Abstraction I would argue is the point where the inexperienced get lost. That is hardly accessible. Perhaps the discussion should be how we make abstraction more accessible?

Modularity contributes to the effective use of the principle of separation of responsibilities, which leads to improved opportunities for creating, reusing and linking code. Component Driven Development (CDD). CDD-adopting teams enjoy advantages like faster development, increased code reuse, improved TDD and a consistent design system. Programmers can leverage existing components, collaborate on changes and simplify new feature development by configuring and expanding core components. This approach helps prevent production-only errors. Code sharing reduces code maintenance, freeing programmers for innovation. Applications built on components standardize work through a shared database of building blocks, enhancing flexibility and efficiency.

When approaching a problem, I try to boil it down to a generic goals. What steps do I need to make with what I currently have? What pieces will be tedious and repetitive? Have any of these steps been done before? Will any of these steps happen again? These questions help me find things to make into their own modular functions.

Not using Abstraction efficiently is the biggest code smell I see during code review. And it doesn't need to be very modular code, it just needs to be "readable enough" to understand the correct context. It should be onion layered.

In my experience, Abstraction and modularity are key in making programming languages accessible. Abstraction simplifies the software by hiding unnecessary complexities, allowing a wider audience to engage with it at different levels. Modularity divides the software into smaller, independent units with clear interfaces and responsibilities, aiding navigation and comprehension. It promotes organization, reduces confusion, and enhances maintainability. These principles not only foster understanding and collaboration but also encourage code reuse and streamline testing efforts, ultimately broadening accessibility in the software engineering community.

The benefits of the tools is undeniable, but my advice to fellow software engineers is the following: do not over-trust and over-rely on your advanced toolset. No fancy tool can make you a better software engineer, just like no new brush can make someone a better painter. Invest on the fundamentals of software development and computer science, and regard toolset as secondary. This is particularly relevant these days, where everybody thinks that can become a great developer just by using the new fancy AI-powered code assistants, failing to realize that blindly relying on these tools can easily turn one into a "monkey typist", incapable of any kind of original thinking.

The usage of frameworks becomes more of a necessity than an opportunity if our other objectives include accelerating development, streamlining tasks, and guaranteeing security. However, the framework is a low-level solution, meaning that many of its components will need to be manually adjusted, and it only has some basic functionality. As a result, the developer always has a choice, which is based on the following factors: performance, which will decide how many requests are processed in a given amount of time; scalability and subsequent support, because low connectivity between modules increases the ability to make changes in less time; and popularity, which reflects ease of use.

While it is important to use tools and frameworks you should also be careful in selecting them. When selecting frameworks you should consider: -How well maintained is this framework? -does this fit my project needs? -does this framework add security vulnerabilities that may have otherwise been avoided? -how widely known and understood is this library. In some cases choosing the right framework/tools can be just as important as choosing a programming language.

In most cases, tools and frameworks are a requirement and not an option. With that, there are trade-offs on what is required of the tool or framework and if it makes sense to open up your application to a larger attack surface if it has many unused portions that are still introduced to your application via transitive dependencies. You have to track how much "magic" is brought into your application via the framework: for instance, Spring's auto wiring and component scanning across all packages. The magic speeds up getting a skeleton system but then it produces longer debug times due to tracking down unexpected instantiations. You can often scope them, but sometimes, it is easier to take a less dynamic route via Guice or Dagger.

As an AI engineer, I see immense potential for large language models to transform code completion and assistance. AI-powered IDEs can suggest entire code blocks based on context, reducing bugs and repetitive work. LLMs also explain logic and generate documentation, acting as onboard assistants. We're just getting started. Soon, LLMs could translate pseudocode into full implementations across languages, identify optimizations, and suggest refactoring. Testing and validation may one day be automated. The future of programming combines human creativity with AI capabilities, embracing these tools and frameworks will be key for being more productive.

This question is total randomly generated crap. It has no meaning at all. How can you make sure that all programming languages reach the software development stakeholders. This is just laughable. What on earth are software development stakeholders ??????? Nobody in their right mind talks like this, not even sales people.

I don't quite get why programming languages should be accessible to non-developers. Testers, maybe.. but managers and end users? Definitely not. It serves no benefit and risks overstepping roles.

Start using a Rule Engine and a Controlled National Natural Language (CNNL) as the SRL, so your OWN language instead of US english. Then let the domain experts concentrate on semantics, and the programmers on syntax. Never use the ELSE construct, and reverse the logic: so never use the "if .. then .. else" constructs, but the "do something if the following conditions are met" paradigm. Last but not least start with the Digital Timetravelling paradigm in order to reduce the number of conditions you need to develop a system.

1.Provide comprehensive and multilingual documentation. 2.Offer diverse learning resources. 3.Create accessible IDEs and code editors. 4.Foster an inclusive developer community. 5.Conduct regular user testing. 6.Follow accessibility guidelines and legal standards. 7.Address cognitive accessibility. 8.Use inclusive language and examples. 9.Establish feedback mechanisms. 10.Collaborate with educational institutions. 11.Advocate for accessibility awareness. #coding #AccessibleCode #InclusiveTech #ProgrammingAccessibility #AccessibleLanguages #CodingForAll #TechInclusion #AccessibleDevTools #AccessibilityMatters #DiverseTech #EmpowerDevelopers #InclusiveCommunity #CodeForEveryone #DigitalAccessibility #AccessibleLearning #TechInnovation

Never use numbered placeholders, other languages may have a different sentence structure. Test your design with Arabic (very high) or Greek (very wide) dummy-sentences so you can check if there is enough space to fit.