Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

Over the past few decades, programming languages have continued to evolve and have been changing the way programmers develop their programs using particular algorithm. Currently, hundreds of programming languages are in existence and new innovative ones continue to emerge as time passes on. The rapid growth and development of the software engineering industry has increased the number of individuals who want to learn programming concepts. Having to choose between programming languages has been confusing for most individuals especially beginners owing to the numerous languages and paradigms that exist in this domain. As such, it is essential to make a comparative analysis of certain programming languages based on their features to give a clear foundation before choosing the appropriate language.

The essence of this comparative analysis is to provide conceptual information for potential novices so that they may understand the basic constructs of programming such that they can solve problems by creating programs and choose the appropriate language to use. Therefore, this paper will propose a framework for assessing the appropriate programming language. The paper will make a comparative analysis of two programming languages based on their popularity and their environmental and technical attributes. This paper will be organized as follows: after the introduction, the study will present the existing literature followed by the methodology. The next section will showcase the findings including the results and finally make a conclusion based on the research questions and problem statement, followed by the implications and recommendations.

Problem Statement

Currently, there are approximately six hundred programming languages in the market (Kamaruzzaman, 2021). To this effect, the demand for and popularity among these languages continue to vary each year and at the same time more and more individuals are increasingly becoming interested in learning computer programming. However, choosing the best programming language as a first programming language can be challenging for most beginners due to the lack of basic knowledge about the mechanisms of these languages, their constructs, and their features. . Moreover, the diverse paradigms such as web, object-oriented, logic, mobile, and structured programming necessitate the need of a comparative analysis before choosing a programming language.

By making a comparative analysis of two programming languages based on their environmental and technical attributes, this paper provides an idea of the basic differences and similarities between the programming languages and may assist in choosing which language is appropriate as a first programming language for novices using features and popularity as their criteria.

Goal

The primary purpose of this study is to make a comparative analysis of two programming languages based on their popularity and environmental and technical features. This paper will also aim at revealing the differences and similarities between the two languages.

Research Questions

1. What are the main external and technical features of each of the two programming languages?
2. What are the differences and similarities between the two languages?

Relevance and Significance

Owing to the emergence of numerous and innovative programming languages as well as the increased interest of individuals seeking to learn computer programming and software development, the decision of choosing the appropriate language can be confusing (Farooq, etal., 2014). Therefore, by providing a conceptual framework of two popular programming languages based on their technical and environmental features, this paper can help beginners to select the appropriate language using these criteria. Choosing a suitable programming language has been a contentious and controversial issue due to the emergence of new languages.

Despite the vast studies in existence, there lacks consensus on a particular language appropriate for beginners since each one has their advantages and disadvantages (Farooq, et al., 2014). Moreover, there is no effective method to determine the most suitable language as a choice for beginners. Therefore, this paper will develop a framework that beginners can use to make the proper decision. This framework is based on existing research and aims to answer the research questions and at the same time evaluate the implications. Due to the scope requirement, this paper will discuss three technical features and three environmental features.

Barriers and Issues

Due to the many programming languages in existence as well as the scope of this paper, it will be difficult to make a comprehensive comparative analysis of all these languages. To address these issues, the researcher based the choice of the two languages namely, java and python on their popularity, usage, and technical and environmental features.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Monica et al. (2015) conducted a study that compared java to python as programming languages for beginners or first programming languages. Their research compared the two languages based on their features including execution time, size, memory usage, accuracy, reliability, among others with an emphasis on salary and job demands for each. Using the algorthim for calculating the increasing grade point average, they found that python utilizes less memory, executes faster, and contains a smaller code size than java. However, they found that java was more robust than python. The researchers concluded that python was the best for use by beginners. Nonetheless, this paper did not give sufficient technical information of the measures involved that can be useful for scoring and assessment purposes.

Meanwhile, Insanudin (2019) used a bubble sort procedure to compare implementation of java and python source codes. They based their comparison on lines of code, access speed, and file capacity. The researcher concluded that python uses lesser lines of code, has a higher speed of access, and its file capacity is lower than that of java. However, this paper only discusses only the intrinsic technical dimensions on a surface level and disregards external factors, which require further exploration. Similarly, Akesson et al. (2019) compared three programming languages: python, javascript, and java based on three criteria: syntax, speed, and circumstances where programmers may prefer each language. They concluded that among the three, python was the easiest concerning writing time, while java’s syntax was preferable and advantageous. Also, according to the researchers, python was the slowest among the languages.

Another study by Siranth (2017) explained why python was an apt language for beginners and real-world application. The researcher also discussed why programmers considered python as the fastest expanding language, its most essential attributes, the programming types that the language supports, and its disadvantages. Even though this paper gives an insight on python’s programming constructs and concepts, it does not compare the language with other languages. As such, this paper is mostly anectdotal in nature.

McMaster et al. (2017) compared python and java programming languages emphasizing their ontorductory programming concepts. They compared the two languages through an analysis of words on programming books that reflect crucial programming perceptions. They found that the two languages had a significant degree of similarities or resemblance such as the array in python is substitutable with a list. The researcher’s correlation rank between the two programs was 0.726 and continued to rise. However, their paper lacks a formal evaluation framework and criteria and the selection of topic samples is anecdotal.

Bukie et al. (2019) conducted a report analysing some of the most common languages like java, python, C++, and PHP. The report also addressed the iterative and recursive functions using factorial algorithms on different programming platforms, recorded their execution times, and charting the results. The authors asserted that beginners could use the comparison chart from their results to assist them in making a decision about the appropriate programming language to use in in different domains. This paper compared and analyzed different programming environments and compilers concerning their efficiency and performance. However, this paper relies only on two environmental aspects and disregards technical attributes of the programming languages that are necessary for making a complete evaluation.

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter introduces and presents the proposed framework for evaluating the apt programming language for beginners. However, the purpose of this paper is to compare, analyze, and recommend a framework for assisting in choosing the appropriate language for beginners to keep them interested in the field. Therefore, the paper makes a comparative analysis of each language based on its technical and environmental aspects. Azarian (2011) suggested that a comparative analysis emphasizes on an explanation of both differences and similarities between two or more concepts or phenomena that help in establishing their relationships. The technical aspects cover the languages intrinsic attributes including orthogonality, security, and feature uniformity while environmental parameters evaluate external attributes such as early transition, quality coding, and user friendliness. The researcher will discuss each technical attribute separately followed by each environmental aspect. To ensure the proper definition for each feature, validity, and reliability, the researcher used references, other statistics, and feature implementation of the languages from existing literature.

Chapter 4: Findings, Analysis, Synthesis

Technical Features

Orthogonality

This feature implies that all programming language constructs follow consistent rules. For instance, both java and python are orthogonal languages since individuals cannot declare certain keywords as identifiers offering a beginner a simpler and smoother learning path. As such, to evaluate whether a language is orthogonal, it must conform to three aspects: keyword reservation, rules consistency, and predictability of construct interactions (Farooq, et al., 2014). Rules consistency implies that language attributes are independent of the appearance context in programs. Thus, if programmers allow syntactic construct for a particular data type, they should also allow the same for all of the data types present in the language. For instance, java passes its primitive data types by value while those for objects through reference. Also, both python and java create objects in heap memory. Interaction predictability means that the compiler writer is subject to execute a particular language construct based on the existing documentation while recording the behaviour in a consistent manner (Farooq, et al., 2014).

Security

The researcher evaluated the security strength of each language based on parameters such as avoiding dangling references, pointers arithmetic, prevention of heap and stack overflow, having control of out of bound array index, and not having memory leakage (Farooq, et al., 2014). A primary concern for program security is uncontrolled aliasing, which creates memory leakages and dangling referencing. For instance, a program containing the “new” keyword without a corresponding “delete” can cause security problems. Both java and python use the “new’ keyword without “delete” because the garbage collector is responsible for deleting all non-referenced memory sites (Farooq, et al., 2014).

The other parameter is about compile or run time pointers. Python considers all variables as references and always references them implicitly, which makes it difficult to access the memory address. Java on the other hand does not support pointers but only reference types that point to objects reducing many error prone programming practices by beginners. Finally, heap and stack overflows may present significant security problems. Stack overflow occurs when a programmer makes massive calls that use the entire memory stack.

Both java and python face this challenge. On the other hand, heap overflow happen when programs create data arrays at runtime requiring more memory capacities than available in the heap. Both python and java are yet to resolve this problem effectively. However, java attempts to resolve the problem by defining “StackOverflowError” in the exception hierarchy (Farooq, et al., 2014).

Feature Uniformity

Feature uniformity means that a proper subset of a programming language cannot solve all problems that a whole set can solve. This attribute consists of feature multiplicity and exclusiveness (Farooq, et al., 2014). Multiplicity implies that an individual can solve a problem in many ways using the same constructs. For instance, there are many ways to increment a variable in various languages. Exclusiveness on the other hand, means accomplishing a task utilizing varying language constructs exclusively such as applying the swapping construct. In contrast, python uses partial exclusiveness and often uses multiplicity. Java on the other hand, mostly uses both exclusiveness and multiplicity.

External Factors

Early Transition

A good programming language for beginners should allow them to transition into the language smoothly, meaning the language should allow beginners to transfer or apply their learning to another language. For instance, if one uses python as a first language, they may find it difficult to transition to java since they do not share similar syntax. More precisely, python does not require a semicolon to terminate a statement but can use them to delimit multiple statements on the same line. Java on the other hand, requires semicolons in statement termination (Khoirom et al., 2020). Otherwise, it will cause compilation errors.

Quality Coding

The essence of standards of coding is maintainability, which plays a significant role in coding quality. Some factors such as consistency, simplicity, portability, clarity, and accuracy, among others constitute quality standards’ strength. The writing style influences the understandability and readability of the program. As such, emphasizing quality coding can help reduce costs of reviewing codes and diminish human dependency and bad coding practices. Naming rules, indentation, braces, and parentheses usage are examples of quality coding (Farooq, et al., 2014).

Apart from being a good coding practice, commenting helps in documentation of programming. However, use of block comments may present a serious problem since a beginner may fail to end a comment, which may swallow essential code. Using an incorrect comment format in a certain language can use massive errors especially for beginners. For example, java uses a starting “/*” and ending “*?” for block comments which also represent multiplication (*) and division (/) operators. Python supports cleaner comments than java.

Moreover, when writing conditional statements, python solves the issue of a dangling “else” by requiring indentation (Farooq, et al., 2014). Java on the other hand, experiences the dangling “else” problem.

User-Friendliness

A programming language’s graphical integrated development environment is crucial since it facilitates the easy writing, indentation, and visualization of codes for both beginners and experienced programmers. The integrated environment should allow the use of structured editing to automatically rectify syntax errors and suggest corrections, meaning a beginner can concentrate on solving the problem rather than syntactic issues. Both java and python have contain this feature making them ideal for beginners. apart from structured editing, the integrated environment should have a “pretty printer” that allows beautification and formatting of the code. This feature helps a beginner to identify the level of codes and increase their readability. Both python and jave have this feature of code beautification.

The other aspect is static checking, which consists of identifying unused variables and functions, as well as custom naming rules violations. Static checking allows beginners to align with the coding standards. Both python and java incorporate this feature. The debugging feature is another aspect of user-friendliness of the integrated environment. The purpose of debuggers is to allow beginners to check their program’s progress concerning the status of their variables by halting a programs execution. Moreover, debuggers allow the users to locate errors in their programs step-by-step. Both python and java have this feature. Farooq, et al. 2014 ranks java programming language higher than python concerning the aspects discussed.

Conclusions and Future Recommendations

This paper proposed a thorough framework for assessing programming languages concerning the choice for beginners as their first programming language. The framework entailed two classification of features including environmental and technical features. The environmental features discussed the extrinsic factors of both python and java programming languages while the technical attributes explained the intrinsic aspects of the languages. The paper defined each of the features and its corresponding sub-features as well as their evaluation criteria. This paper’s limitations included scope constraint that only allowed the researcher to evaluate three sub-features for each classification. However, to increase reliability and validity, the paper included a review and comparison of peer-reviewed articles. Implications from the discussions, both java and python share some similarities and have some variances concerning specific features and sub-features. Both languages have reasonable support for most of the features that this paper discussed. Even though the discussions of the features leans towards python as being the best choice as a first programming language, beginners must prepare to obtain additional material and information to attain their ultimate decision of picking their programming language.

Recommendations for Future Research

This comparative analysis provides a framework for choosing a programming language suitable for beginners. However, it requires empirical support to improve the list of features and further exploration and obtain a clear evaluation of the best choice for beginners. Moreover, concerning the environmental factors, this paper shows some of disadvantages of the two languages when compared. This implies that programmers can develop new tools to increase compliance to a languages environmental attributes such as user-friendliness, readability, and quality coding.

References

• Åkesson, T., & Horntvedt, R. (2019). Java, Python and Javascript, a comparison.
• Azarian, R. (2011). Potentials and limitations of comparative method in social science. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(4), 113-125. Bukie, P. T., Udeze, C. L., Obono, I. O., & Edim, E. B. (2019). Comparative Analysis of Compiler Performances and Program Efficiency.
• Farooq, M. S., Khan, S. A., Ahmad, F., Islam, S., & Abid, A. (2014). An evaluation framework and comparative analysis of the widely used first programming languages. PloS one, 9(2), e88941.
• Insanudin, E. (2019, November). Implementation of python source code comparison results with Java using bubble sort method. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1280, No. 3, p. 032027). IOP Publishing.
• Kamaruzzaman, M. (2021, January 03). Top 10 In-Demand programming languages to learn in 2020. Retrieved from https://towardsdatascience.com/top-10-in-demand- programming-languages-to-learn-in-2020-4462eb7d8d3e#:~:text=There are around 600 programming,programming languages fluctuate every year.
• Khoirom, M. S., Sonia, M., Laikhuram, B., Laishram, J., & Singh, T. D. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Python and Java for Beginners.
• McMaster, K., Sambasivam, S., Rague, B., & Wolthuis, S. (2017). Java vs. Python coverage of introductory programming concepts: a textbook analysis. Information Systems Education Journal, 15(3), 4.
• Monica, N., Blessing, O. O., & Benedette, O. O. (2016) Comparison of python and java for use in instruction in first course in computer programming.
• Srinath, K. R. (2017). Python–the fastest growing programming language. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(12), 354-357