Lenguajes y plataformas de desarrollo


Published on

Sesión 1 de la asignatura de Arquitectura y desarrollo de software del Instituto de Empresa

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Lenguajes y plataformas de desarrollo

  1. 1. Arquitectura y Desarrollo Software<br />Jose Luis Calvo<br />
  2. 2. Lenguajes y plataformasde desarrollo<br />
  3. 3. Historia de los lenguajes de programación<br />
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7. Principalesplataformas de desarrollo<br />(Fuente: Forrester)<br />
  8. 8. Principalesplataformas de desarrollo<br />Fuente: IDC 2009 Mission Critical Study, weighted data, N=920, 2009 Mission Critical North American Application Platform Study Webcast<br />Q5: When building mission-critical applications excluding email, what programming languages & frameworks does your company use now and 2 years from now? (multiple response)<br />
  9. 9. Java y .NET<br />
  10. 10. Java y .NET<br />
  11. 11. Entornosheterogéneos<br />Fuente: “Java Or Windows?”, Forrester, Jul 2003 <br />.NET<br />35%<br />Ambos<br />49%<br />Java<br />16%<br />
  12. 12. Market Share<br />Choice of Languages for Custom-Developed applications<br />Comparison between Enterprises and SMBs1<br />Comparison between North America and Europe (Enterprises)2<br />Java/J2EE<br />VB .NET<br />VB .NET<br />Microsoft C#<br />Microsoft VB 6.0 and earlier<br />Microsoft VB 6.0 and earlier<br />COBOL<br />Server Scripting Languages<br />Microsoft C#<br />C and C++<br />Proprietary 4GL tools<br />Java/ J2EE<br />RPG<br />Enterprises<br />North America<br />Server Scripting Languages<br />BPEL<br />SMBs<br />Europe<br />Other<br />Enterprises that use .NET language (VB. NET and C#) also use4<br />Enterprises that use Java language also use3<br />Microsoft VB .NET<br />Java<br />No other languages<br />No other languages<br />COBOL<br />Microsoft VB 6.0 or earlier<br />Microsoft C#<br />COBOL<br />Microsoft VB 6.0 or earlier<br />Server Scripting languages<br />Server Scripting languages<br />Proprietary 4GLs<br />C and C++<br />C and C++<br />Other<br />Other<br />Note: 1N= 518 Fuente: “The State Of Application Development In Enterprises and SMBs”, Forrester, Feb 2007<br />
  13. 13. Java vs .NET. Percepciones<br />
  14. 14. Evolución de Plataformas<br />Java<br />Microsoft<br />Java, Java VM<br />Windows DNA (COM)<br />1996<br />1999<br />J2EE 1.0 (JCP)<br />2002<br />.NET Framework 1.0<br />2003<br />J2EE 1.4 (JCP)<br />2005<br />.NET Framework 2.0<br />Ibatis<br />Hibernate<br />Struts<br />Spring<br />OSS<br />2006<br />.NET Framework 3.0<br />Java EE 5<br />EE 6<br />(JCP)<br />Open SOA<br />…<br />…<br />SDO<br />2008<br />.NET Framework 3.5<br />…<br />SCA<br />JBI<br />Entity Beans<br />
  15. 15. Java Swing, <br />IBM SWT.<br />JavaFX<br />Silverlight, WPF, WinForms, OBA(Office)<br />Adobe<br />Flash/Flex<br />Air<br />Tecnologías<br />Presentación<br />Servicios Web<br />Arquitectura - Backend<br />Plataforma.NET<br />Arquitectura - Backend<br />PlataformaJAVA<br />Backends<br />Interoperabilidad<br />
  16. 16. Interoperabilidad<br />
  17. 17. Internet. Adaptarse<br />
  18. 18. Evolución de lastecnologías Web<br />HTML 2.0<br />Specifications<br />HTML 4.01<br />W3C Rec.<br />HTML 5<br />working group<br />HTML 3.2<br />W3C Rec.<br />HTML 4.0<br />W3C Rec.<br />Web Technology 1.01 Working Group<br />HTML 5<br />Draft – Support for Audio, Video, Canvas, Storage, Offline, etc.<br />XHTML 1.0<br />W3C Rec.<br />XHTML 2<br />Draft<br />Browser Technologies<br />XHTML 1.1<br />W3C Rec.<br />Browser-war re-ignited<br />CSS 1.0W3C Rec.<br />CSS 2.0W3C Rec.<br />CSS 3.0 Draft<br />SF 1 (1.5%)<br />SF 2 (3%)<br />SF 3 (5%)<br />SF 4 (7%)<br />WWW<br />NM<br />IE 4<br />IE 5<br />IE 6<br />IE 2<br />IE 3<br />IE 7 (80%)<br />IE 8 (65% - May’09)<br />Browsers<br />CH 1, 2 (1.8%)<br />NS 1<br />NS 2 (80%)1<br />NS 3<br />NS 4.7 <br />NS 6 (18%) <br />NS 7 (7%) <br />NS 4 (58%) <br />NS 9 (1%)<br />NS 8 (2%)<br />FF 3, 3.5 (21%)<br />FF 2 (15%)<br />FF 1 (7%)<br />XMLHttpRequest<br />Ajax<br />Web Conferencing<br />Blogging <br />iTunes <br />Podcasting<br />Facebook <br />Innovations<br />W3C <br />Web Commerce<br />RSS <br />MySpace<br />Gmail<br />YouTube<br />Twitter <br />Google Wave<br />1991<br />1993<br />1994<br />1995<br />1996<br />1998<br />1999<br />2000<br />2001<br />2003<br />2005<br />2006<br />2007<br />2008<br />2009<br />2002<br />1997<br />2004<br />Note: Abbreviations – Rec = Recommendations, WWW = WorldWideWeb, NM = NSCA Mosaic, IE = Internet Explorer, SF = Safari, FF = Firefox (share includes Netscape and Mozilla), NS = Netscape, CH = Chrome; Slide recreated from source with additions by Grail; 1 % mentioned here refers to usage share; 1Later renamed as HTML 5. Source: “The Future of Web Page Design”, Course Technology Cengage Learning; Google Website; Grail Analysis; Net Applications; NetScape Blog; World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Website; National Center for Supercomputing Applications; Information Week; Microsoft; Zdnet<br />
  19. 19. Lenguajes de marcado<br />
  20. 20. Estándares<br />
  21. 21. ¿Lenguajes de Internet?<br />
  22. 22. Fuertecrecimiento<br />PHP a<br />Worldwide PHP Programmer Count (in MM)a, 2, 2006-13F<br />CAGR2006-13F<br />5.5<br />5.2<br />5.0<br />4.9<br />4.5<br />4.2<br />4.0<br />-0.9%<br />3.8<br />22.1%<br />44.8%<br />Part-time Developers and Hobbyists<br />2006<br />2007<br />2008F<br />2009F<br />2010F<br />2011F<br />2012F<br />2013F<br />Independent Software Vendors<br />Corporate IT Developers<br />Ruby b<br />Worldwide Ruby Programmer Count (in MM) b, 2, 2006-13F<br />CAGR2006-13F<br />4.0<br />3.7<br />16.2%<br />3.5<br />3.0<br />40.9%<br />2.0<br />1.0<br />0.7<br />0.6<br />53.7%<br />2006<br />2007<br />2008F<br />2009F<br />2010F<br />2011F<br />2012F<br />2013F<br />Fuente: “Findings: Corporate and IT Programmers Will Discover PHP's Benefits in Larger Numbers”, Gartner, Dec 2007; b “Findings: The Ruby Language Will Reach 4 million Programmers by 2013”, Gartner, Dec 2007<br />
  23. 23. El mercado de los servidores Web<br />Fuente: Netcraft<br />Open Source domina y/o crece<br />Operating System Share of Web Facing Computers<br />Web Server Share of Web Facing Computers<br />Scripting Technology Share (IP Addresses)<br />
  24. 24. Thick vs Thin<br />Datos<br />Lógica<br />Presentación<br />
  25. 25. Cliente rico vs Cliente ligero<br />
  26. 26. Rich Internet Applications<br />Source: 1 “Open Source in RIA Tools, 2008”, Gartner, Apr 2008; 2 “Rich Internet Apps Move Beyond The Browser”, Forrester, Jun 2007<br />Outside-browser RIA<br />Lightweightandsimple<br />Heavyweightandcomplex<br />Baseline browser<br />Application environment is present outside the browser<br />Platforms are thicker, more capable and more complex than in-browser approaches<br />Basic browser without enhancements such as plug-ins<br />Content is expressed principally in HTML or XML<br />Programmatic logic is not expressed in client-side code<br />Rich Internet Applications(Gartner View) 1<br />Lightweight Ajax<br />Heavyweight Ajax<br />Plug-in enhanced browser<br />Client side JavaScript is used<br />Code used is independent of server<br />User experience is richer because of use of JavaScript<br />Typically uses a more capable framework<br />Complementary server-side processing is involved<br />Feature-rich applications with rich user interface are possible<br />Plug-ins such as Flash, Google Gears and Java allow applications to go beyond limits of browsers<br />Features and user interface richer than Ajax are possible<br />Rich Internet Application Platforms (Forrester View) 2<br />Browser-based<br />Player-based<br />Client-based<br />ThinClient<br />Flash / FlexSilverlight<br />AIRJavaFX<br />WindowsMacintosh<br />RichClient<br />HTML<br />Ajax<br />Reduced maintenanceLocation independence<br />Intuitive UIImmediate response<br />Combined benefitsof thin and rich clients<br />
  27. 27. Evolución del mercado «thinclient»<br />2008 Worldwide Shipments<br />Thin Clients – 3 Million units (1% WW)<br />PCs - 248 million units<br />Source : Gartner, 2008 PC Market Size WW - June 2009<br />1999 Worldwide Shipments<br />Thin Clients – 700,000 units (0.6% WW)<br />PCs - 113 million units<br />Source : IDC 1999 Enterprise Thin Client Year in Review - Jan 2000 Update IDC, 9/7/01<br />
  28. 28. Las experiencias más ricas, suelen ser «locales»<br />
  29. 29. Y con un interfaz muy «usable»<br />
  30. 30. Software Libre<br />
  31. 31.
  32. 32. TendenciasTecnológicasDisruptivas<br />3<br />IT Dirigidapor el Consumidor<br />5<br />1<br />Complejidadcreciente<br />Petabyte<br />y <br />petaflop<br />2<br />4<br />Estándares<br />abiertos<br />Cloudcomputing<br />
  33. 33. Consumerización de TI<br />“A medidaquese incrementa la adopción de bandaancha, el consumidor dicta mástendencias en innovación TI en la empresa." <br />- Joshua Holbrook, Yankee Group <br />
  34. 34. Redes sociales<br />
  35. 35. Experiencia de usuario<br />
  36. 36. Reconocimiento de escritura<br />Reconocimiento de voz<br />Síntesis de voz<br />Touch<br />Reconocimiento de movimiento<br />Reconocimiento visual<br />Gráficos avanzados<br />Interfaz Natural<br />
  37. 37. Touch<br />
  38. 38. Touch<br />
  39. 39. The Internet OperatingSystem<br />
  40. 40. Movil<br />
  41. 41.
  42. 42. Plataformas<br />
  43. 43. HTML 5<br />
  44. 44. Autenticación<br />
  45. 45. Mi Web es mayor que tu empresa<br />