Platform-as-a-service Language Use Study

Transcription

1 Research Report Abstract: Platform-as-a-service Language Use Study By Stephen D. Hendrick, Principal Analyst with Bill Lundell, Senior Research Analyst & Jennifer Gahm, Senior Project Manager February by The Enterprise Strategy Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

2 Introduction Research Objectives Research Report: Platform-as-a-service Language Use Study As part of ESG s application development and deployment (AD&D) research, this survey was primarily focused on understanding interest in platform-as-a-service (PaaS). There were 4 specific objectives in fielding this survey: 1. Quantify PaaS adoption 2. Understand the level of satisfaction with PaaS and why 3. Identify what PaaS features are most important to IT managers and developers 4. Examine what languages, frameworks, and development environments are most preferred by developers This report will examine the fourth objective: what languages are in use by developers who are either Paas users or evaluators. Other reports will examine PaaS adoption, satisfaction, and feature preference. ESG surveyed 326 IT professionals and application developers representing predominantly midmarket enterprise (100 to 999 employees) and large enterprise-class (1,000 employees or more) organizations in North America. The sample included 176 application developers and 150 IT managers. The language use questions in this survey were only administered to application developers. It also needs to be understood that the respondents to this survey are either PaaS users or PaaS evaluators. A PaaS user is an enterprise that currently uses a PaaS. A PaaS evaluator is an enterprise that currently does not use a PaaS but is actively evaluating a variety of PaaS products for intended use in the next 18 months. This means that the language use questions analyzed in this report reflect the behavior of enterprises that are either using PaaS or likely to use PaaS. We can speculate that enterprises committed to PaaS represent a more technologically savvy segment of the overall population of enterprises that engage in the development of custom applications. This language section of this survey was designed to answer the following language use questions: What client-side languages are in use for application development? What client-side platforms are used for application development? What server-side languages are in use for application development? What high productivity application development environments are in use? Survey participants represented a wide range of industries including manufacturing, financial services, health care, communications and media, retail, government, and business services. For more details, including how we screened respondents, please see the Research Methodology and Respondent Demographics sections of this report by The Enterprise Strategy Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

3 Research Methodology To gather data for this report, ESG conducted a comprehensive online survey of IT professionals and application developers from private- and public-sector organizations in North America (United States and Canada) between October 28, 2014 and November 6, To qualify for this survey, respondents were required to be responsible for evaluating and/or selecting software application development and deployment tools for their organization. Respondents who were not involved in the decision making process for software application and development tools were disqualified. Respondents were also required to be 26 years old or older and have 2 or more years of experience working in an IT or application development role. If a respondent was under 26 years old or had less than 2 years work experience in an IT or application development role, they were disqualified. All respondents were provided an incentive to complete the survey in the form of cash awards and/or cash equivalents. After filtering out unqualified respondents, removing duplicate responses, and screening the remaining completed responses (on a number of criteria) for data integrity, we were left with a final total sample of 326 IT professionals and application developers who either were currently using PaaS or intended to use PaaS within the next 2 years. Please see the Respondent Demographics section of this report for more information on these respondents. Note: Totals in figures and tables throughout this report may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Language Categories Our choice of language categories recognizes both the significant difference between high control and high productivity environments as well as the growing specialization on clients and servers. Consequently, we chose to establish four language categories, which are as follows: Client-side Languages. Client-side languages are designed to address user interface development, promote dynamic application behavior, and communicate with servers. Client-side Frameworks and Platforms. Client-side frameworks are typically libraries that simplify the development of applications while providing a comprehensive set of features that enable more sophisticated application behavior. Client-side platforms are similar to frameworks but lean more in the direction of development tools, code libraries, and environments for building and managing client-side applications. Server-side Languages. Server-side languages fulfill a variety of roles including structuring static and dynamic pages for delivery to the client, enabling the development of application business logic, and reading/writing data from/to back-end databases and content repositories. High Productivity Development Environments. High productivity development environments (HPDEs) are intended to provide developers with tools that are optimized for the development of application business logic (BPM tools) or provide a unified environment for developing all aspects of a modern N-tier application. These tools are generally very visual and provide pre-built constructs for common activities, thereby simplifying and shortening the application development process. Language Analysis The language section of this survey was administered after all of the primary screening questions and demographic questions were answered. This ensured that application development professionals answering the language questions met all of the criteria in order to qualify for this survey. Our approach to analyzing language use was designed to address several objectives. The first objective was to identify the primary languages, frameworks, and development environments in use. The second objective was to understand other languages, frameworks, and development environments in use. We accomplished these two goals by asking the developer in each language question to identify the primary, secondary, and tertiary tools in use at their enterprise.

4 Research Report: Platform-as-a-Service Usage and Satisfaction Study 2 In our analysis of the language data, we evaluated the data in its raw form and also after weighting the data. We weighted the data by assigning points for each position. The weighting scheme we used was as follows: Primary selection: 25 points. Secondary selection: 18 points. Tertiary selection: 15 points. This weighting scheme was designed to recognize the importance of the primary selection but avoid being unduly punitive with respect to the secondary and tertiary selections. A comparison of weighted results to unweighted results shows no difference in the stack ranking of the leading products in use. We are presenting the weighted data in this report because we feel it better reflects the stature of products in use at enterprises. Language by Frequency of Use Calculations The frequency of use percentages for the language data were calculated by first weighting the primary, secondary, and tertiary selections of each respondent. These weighted scores were then summed across all respondents. The percentage value for each language selection (primary, secondary, or tertiary) was then calculated by taking the weighted value for the language selection and dividing it into the total weighted score across all language selections. This approach enables frequency of use data for languages to also be interpreted as penetration rate data by language. Language by Age Category Calculations Language use by age category percentages were also approached using weighted language data. However, since the number of respondents in each age category varied, the weighted value for each language was divided into the weighted total across all languages by age category. This approach allows penetration rates for a particular language to be compared across age categories.

5 Research Report: Platform-as-a-Service Usage and Satisfaction Study 3 Respondent Demographics The data presented in this report is based on a survey of 326 qualified respondents. Figure 1 - Figure 9 detail the demographics of the respondent base, including individual respondents current job role/title, level of involvement with evaluating/selecting software development tools, age group, and number of years work experience in an IT or application development role, as well as respondent organizations total number of employees, primary industry, annual revenue, and length of existence. Respondents Familiarity with Platform-as-a-service Technologies Respondents familiarity with platform-as-a-service technologies is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Respondents Familiarity with Platform-as-a-service (PaaS) Technologies How familiar are you with platform-as-a-service (PaaS)? (Percent of respondents, N=326) Familiar with PaaS, 41% Very familiar with PaaS, 59%

6 Research Report: Platform-as-a-Service Usage and Satisfaction Study 4 Respondents by Job Role or Title Respondents current job role or title is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Survey Respondents, by Job Role/Title Which of the following best (i.e., most closely) describes your primary job role or title within your organization? (Percent of respondents, N=326, one response accepted) Manager of Information Technology Chief Technology Officer Director of Information Technology Director of Application Development Chief Information Officer Software Engineer Manager of Application Development Senior Software Engineer Vice President of Application Development Vice President of Information Technology Enterprise Architect Computer Systems Manager 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 7% 8% 9% 11% 13% 16% 19% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

7 Research Report: Platform-as-a-Service Usage and Satisfaction Study 5 Respondents by Level of Purchasing Involvement Figure 3 shows the current involvement of respondents in evaluating and/or selecting software application development and deployment tools. Figure 3. Survey Respondents, by Role in Evaluating/Selecting Software Application Development and Deployment Tools Which of the following best describes your involvement in evaluating and/or selecting software application development and deployment tools for your organization? (Percent of respondents, N=326) I do not directly influence the decision but do provide feedback necessary to the decision makers, 2% I directly influence the decision, 19% I am a key decision maker, 79% Respondents by Age The age of survey respondents is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Survey Respondents, by Age Please select your age group. (Percent of respondents, N=326) Over 55, 10% 46 to 55, 21% 26 to 35, 35% 36 to 45, 34%

8 Research Report: Platform-as-a-Service Usage and Satisfaction Study 6 Respondents by Years of Experience The number of years that respondents have worked in an IT or application development role is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Survey Respondents, by Number of Years Working in an IT or Application Development Role For how long have you been working in an IT or application development role? (Percent of respondents, N=326) More than 20 years, 16% 2 to 5 years, 7% 11 to 20 years, 31% 6 to 10 years, 46% Respondents by Number of Employees The number of employees in respondents organizations is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6. Survey Respondents, by Total Number of Employees Worldwide How many total employees does your organization have worldwide? (Percent of respondents, N=326) 20,000 or more, 10% 10,000 to 19,999, 7% 50 to 99, 3% 100 to 249, 7% 250 to 499, 10% 5,000 to 9,999, 8% 2,500 to 4,999, 19% 500 to 999, 14% 1,500 to 2,499, 8% 1,000 to 1,499, 14%

9 Respondents by Industry Research Report: Platform-as-a-Service Usage and Satisfaction Study 7 Respondents were asked to identify their organization s primary industry. In total, ESG received completed, qualified respondents from individuals in 19 distinct vertical industries, plus an Other category. Respondents were then grouped into the broader categories shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Survey Respondents, by Industry What is your organization s primary industry? (Percent of respondents, N=326) Communications & Media, 5% Government (Federal/National, State/Local), 5% Health Care, 9% Other, 18% Business Services (accounting, consulting, legal, etc.), 9% Financial (banking, securities, insurance), 21% Retail/Wholesale, 14% Manufacturing, 18% Respondents by Annual Revenue The annual revenue of the organization that the respondent is employed by is shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. Survey Respondents, by Revenue of Organization 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 7% Less than $50 million What is your organization s approximate total annual revenue ($US)? (Percent of respondents, N=326) 18% 16% 16% 10% $50 million to $ million $100 million$500 million to $ to $ million million $1 billion to $4.999 billion 12% 12% $5 billion to $9.999 billion $10 billion to $ billion 6% $20 billion or more 2% Not applicable (e.g., public sector, nonprofit)

10 Research Report: Platform-as-a-Service Usage and Satisfaction Study 8 Respondents by Length of Organizations Existence The length of time that the respondents employer has been in existence is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. Survey Respondents, by Length of Organizations Existence For approximately how long has your current employer been in existence? (Percent of respondents, N=326) 1 to 5 years, 2% More than 50 years, 19% 6 to 10 years, 13% 11 to 20 years, 33% 21 to 50 years, 33%

11 Research Report: Platform-as-a-service Language Use Study Contents List of Figures... 3 Executive Summary... 4 Report Conclusions... 4 Introduction... 6 Research Objectives... 6 Research Findings... 7 In Enterprise Application Development, Build versus Buy Is a Difficult Decision... 7 Client-side Language Trends... 9 Server-side Language Trends High Productivity Development Environments Favor BPM Conclusions Research Implications for Technology Vendors Research Implications for IT Professionals Research Methodology Language Categories Language Analysis Respondent Demographics Respondents Familiarity with Platform-as-a-service Technologies Respondents by Job Role or Title Respondents by Level of Purchasing Involvement Respondents by Age Respondents by Years of Experience Respondents by Number of Employees Respondents by Industry Respondents by Annual Revenue Respondents by Length of Organizations Existence by The Enterprise Strategy Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

12 Research Report: Platform-as-a-service Language Use Study List of Figures Figure 1. Application Workload Categories... 7 Figure 2. Application Workload Categories by Company Age... 8 Figure 3. Client-side Languages by Frequency of Use... 9 Figure 4. Client-side Languages in Use by Respondent Age Figure 5. Client-side Frameworks and Platforms in Use by Frequency of Use Figure 6. Client-side Frameworks and Platforms in Use by Respondent Age Figure 7. Server-side Languages by Frequency of Use Figure 8. Server-side Languages by Respondent Age Figure 9. High Productivity Development Environments by Frequency of Use Figure 10. High Productivity Development Environments by Respondent Age Figure 11. Respondents Familiarity with Platform-as-a-service (PaaS) Technologies Figure 12. Survey Respondents, by Job Role/Title Figure 13. Survey Respondents, by Role in Evaluating/Selecting Software Application Development and Deployment Tools Figure 14. Survey Respondents, by Age Figure 15. Survey Respondents, by Number of Years Working in an IT or Application Development Role Figure 16. Survey Respondents, by Total Number of Employees Worldwide Figure 17. Survey Respondents, by Industry Figure 18. Survey Respondents, by Revenue of Organization Figure 19. Survey Respondents, by Length of Organizations Existence All trademark names are property of their respective companies. Information contained in this publication has been obtained by sources The Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) considers to be reliable but is not warranted by ESG. This publication may contain opinions of ESG, which are subject to change from time to time. This publication is copyrighted by The Enterprise Strategy Group, Inc. Any reproduction or redistribution of this publication, in whole or in part, whether in hard-copy format, electronically, or otherwise to persons not authorized to receive it, without the express consent of The Enterprise Strategy Group, Inc., is in violation of U.S. copyright law and will be subject to an action for civil damages and, if applicable, criminal prosecution. Should you have any questions, please contact ESG Client Relations at by The Enterprise Strategy Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

13 20 Asylum Street Milford, MA Tel: Fax: