There's more to a language than the syntax. The libraries, tools, and the ecosystem of developers, documentation, support, etc. are much more important. There are quite a few academic languages that are interesting to people that never really gain much traction because the people behind them just never commit to proper ecosystem building.
Switching languages is a big time commitment. Or at least it used to be. I find myself more open to that now that I can hit the ground running with AI coding tools in most languages. But still, it's a time investment to learn a language, its idioms, its way of doing things, all the tools, libraries, and frameworks, etc. It's not something you do an in afternoon. And certainly not mid project.
The languages that people gravitate to are the ones that look like they are safe, future proof bets. If you are going to spend all this energy learning one, you want to know it's a good investment. Successful languages have lots of users, decent tools, good libraries, etc. Or at least they look like there are serious people behind them. Many people make these bets early in their careers and then stick to them as well. I meet a fair share of people my age that are still sticking to Java. Because that's what they learned when they were in their twenties. I'm 51 now.
Rust is a good example of a language that's hard to learn but managed to get off the ground because of the solid people behind it. It wasn't just an academic exercise: Mozilla was trying to solve a real problem and they managed to get a nice community behind the language and it grew from there. This is not something that happens a lot. People create new languages all the time. But many stay very niche and the projects around them tend to go stale very quickly if they fail to attract a community of users.
I think the more appropriate analogy is there's more to a drill than the drill. When you buy a Milwaukee drill, because it shares a battery with other Milwaukee parts, it's easier to buy more Milwaukee tools.
So it helps to choose a drill brand with the ecosystem you like, not just one that's a serviceable drill.
(Or you could argue that a language's ecosystem is part of the dang language. Which I agree with).
I still attribute a rich OOTB standard library for Go’s success. You have an OOTB production capable web HTTP server baked into the standard library since practically day 1?
Libraries and frameworks and package management absolutely matter. They're not some abstract thing, they could be the difference between something being done in 6 months or in 2 years.
Comparing a languages syntax to a saw blade is a bad analogy. A saw is a complete tool. Syntax is more like the teeth on the saw blade. The quality of the saw is not just about the teeth. It's also about the size and spacing of those teeth, the strength of the blade those teeth are on, the shape of the saw blade itself, the hardness of the metal, as well as the shape of the handle.
If you are just building a table then hopefully you are not trying to do the whole thing with a keyhole saw.
So 2 languages are the same if they have the same syntax but 1 is interpreted, and not safe, whereas the other is compiled and safe?
Where one has a large library and runs on many platforms, and the other doesn't?
Where one behaves like PHP with respect to equality, and the other doesn't?
The closer metaphor is the handle. A saw handle may be ergonomic, that doesn't mean the quality of the blade is good, or even suitable for what you're trying to cut.
Lisp is fun. The interactivity and instant turnaround of a Lisp REPL is still rarely matched in other languages. Common Lisp also solved a significant issue other languages didn't address well until much later: the ability to write high-level code that was fast on cheap hardware around the turn of the millennium.
Lisp didn't get popular around the turn of the millennium. Success stories like Naughty Dog, ITA, and Viaweb were rare, and the dominant languages seemed to be Java and various scripting languages starting with the letter P.
Hah! SO MANY LANGUAGES got skipped, even from my own CV. I wanted to address Louis/II, for goodness' sake, but it's a CODASYL tool, and not a lot of people remember CODASYL from experience. (Nor should they: I liked it, but... nah, RDMS won for good reasons.)
Lisp is certainly fun, and it lives today and is influential today in multiple environments; I have a Clojure app I work on for my own amusement. And it does have commercial appeal, but it's limited; the three axis thing applies.
I often hear about lisp but never actually figured out what tooling you need Is it interpreted or compiled language? Why should I use it instead of any other languages?
"Lisp" refers to several different languages in the same family, which contributes to the confusion.
Perhaps the default choice is Common Lisp which itself is specified in an ANSI standard and has several competing implementations. Some are compiled, some are interpreted.
Arguably the best is SBCL, which has a mature compiler and garbage collection. If you lean on implementation-specific features you can produce extremely fast code that approaches the performance of C in some benchmarks, but idiomatic and portable lisp is slower in practice.
>Why should I use it instead of any other languages?
The killer feature used to be the REPL. You can write the application function by function, and test the functions, data structures, or classes you write in the REPL as you're actively building the app.
Nowadays with LLMs writing all the code, I honestly don't see much reason to reach for lisp. Agents don't require a REPL, and other languages have vastly superior library support.
> You can write the application function by function ...
and then use JUnit or TestNG in Java, or similar features in other languages. Which you can automatically run, including showing code coverage, both with a button in your IDE and as part of the CI/CD process when you commit.
I really enjoy writing lisp but the ecosystem of libraries is a barren wasteland.
Try to find a TLS library for Common Lisp that doesn't rely on openssl, for example. Last time I looked the most mature library was marked 'experimental'.
I'm calling bull on this. Learning languages, at certain points, is always tedious. Whether that language is a computer language, or something like Greek, there comes a moment where "trudging" begins. The reason a person "trudges" is that they have a goal in mind that makes the trudging something to endure until that goal is achieved. Fun comes from not having to solve the same problem sixty times, or having to sort through a million files by hand when a program can do it in 3 seconds.
Hmm. I find learning fun, no matter what the scope is - even Greek, which remains obscure to me. (Quick, ask me something about Greek! I'll nod wisely and stroke my chin in deep thought and then get distracted and wander elsewhere.) But you're not wrong: there's a fun discovery phase, then a "hey, does this actually work" phase, and then a "crap, I need to figure out how to MAKE it work" phase, all of which are decision points where one might choose to not bother.
The stewardship and economics of the language can also be the issue. I started coding in the 80's and so web development for me evolved at the inception of the field. I will go to my grave insisting that Coldfusion was a better platform than PHP, but it was always commercial with a financial barrier to entry. PHP being free led to a glut of PHP developers, low-cost hosting, and an enormous ecosystem that ultimately redirected the course of the early web.
To add a few more exotic cases that affect things. Keep in mind that by default new languages fail. To succeed, many things have to all go right at once, and this implies that therefore there is not one single element that, if gotten right, means the language will therefore be successful (it's rather the opposite: If even one of the key factors is wrong, it'll probably fail).
* It's just a guesstimate, but one of those factors that caused java to be successful but-for (as in, if it hadn't had this, it wouldn't have been a success): It copies C style religiously anywhere it could get away with it. This caused some damage to the language that it has fixed in the past decade (such as the style and behaviour of `switch` being so bizarre - but it religiously follows exactly how it works in C!)
* Some languages end up failing partly due to community outlook. Scala is somewhat well known for having a core community that is highly aggressive and elitist, or to be a bit milder, to be 'less accepting of newbies with a limited understanding of programming concepts' than is optimal'. And in addition to that, they are in contrast to the java ecosystem ready to drop support for stuff quickly, meaning: Real life actual use of scala as a basis means you're either working with a hopelessly obsolete codebase or you're spending time refactoring it every other month pretty much. Scala's adoption is fading and never got anywhere near its hyped future.
* If a language is 'native to a platform' which I define as: "If the shepherds/owners of that platform were to write a basic app for their own platform, what language would they write it in? That's the 'native to that platform' language", then it tends to succeed even if it is not fun and not very well designed and even if transpilers exist. This is sufficient explanation for me for the success of javascript: It is the native-to-the-platform language if the biggest platform around.
These all fit within the thesis. They're all (last one is debatable) very human factors.
I would say that out of the box functionality (in the language itself or stdlib) makes a difference these days too. Older languages aren’t really subject to this, but new languages can be hard to justify bothering with if they require you to reach for third party libraries (and all the security issues, drama, etc those can entail) for somewhat common/basic functionality.
Yes to all that but still, my pet theory is that languages rise on one or two "killer features" that move the entire industry forward, and not the overall cuteness or lovability.
I can suggest a list of one killer feature per each popular language, i.e. things that these languages were the first to introduce and influence many successors:
C: extreme conciseness
C++: implicit destructors / RAII
Python: removed curly braces
Java: extreme portability
JavaScript: erm...
PHP: embedded in HTML by design
Rust: compile-time memory management
Swift: structured concurrency (pre-6 was probably just pure cuteness)
C++ succeeded because it was Object Oriented, people didn't start talking about RAII as C++ killer feature until years later
python succeeded because it wasn't Perl's TMTOWTDI, everyone expected ruby to overtake python, but .. for some reason that never happened
swift succeeded because apple pushed it to replace objective c, that if you consider swift succeeded
anyway, i agree with your premise, languages need one key strategic advantage feature to succeed, but you just got it wrong on few of them .. and if i am wrong too, then the premise is weak, if we are not sure what the killer feature is, we then have no idea why the language succeeded
I don't think C++ succeeded because it was object-oriented. I think C++ was object-oriented because classes were an abstraction that could layer on top of C with fairly low overhead, giving it more expressive power without much mandatory cost to size or speed.
In other words, object-orientation was the means, not the end.
> python succeeded because it wasn't Perl's TMTOWTDI, everyone expected ruby to overtake python, but .. for some reason that never happened
Ruby allows (and to some extent encourages) unreasonable code.
It's not bad code (and in some cases extremely elegant), but it's code you can't reason about.
Being able to open any class (or object) and add new methods to it makes tracking how execution works extremely difficult.
The language allows for very undisciplined things to work - its great for the "scripting" and rapid prototyping - but unless you're going to throw it away the next day of having to maintain that code it starts weighing on the future speed of working.
Undisciplined code can be handled by making sure everyone on the team is disciplined in its use and documenting how things work... but that rarely reflects reality.
And so, you move to a language that enforces more discipline in how one uses it and is more reasonable in its execution.
C is not "extremely concise". Lisp, and especially APL both predate C and are more concise. To me, the "killer feature" of C is UNIX, we can't really separate them, C won because UNIX won and vice versa. Other than that it is reasonably concise, reasonably portable and reasonably low level. The language itself doesn't have any "killer feature".
For Python, I think its killer feature, related to the removal of curly braces is that it is a dynamic language (like Perl) that forces you to write somewhat readable code. You have no choice but to indent correctly, and there is a strong "pythonic" ideal way of coding, the complete opposite of Perl's "more than one way to do it".
JavaScript killer feature is obviously its integration in browsers but it is also well designed for this task, with pretty good support for asynchronous programming.
Still, I don't think any of these languages were successful for their "killer features", more because of a combinations of many things. In many cases, they weren't even the first. For example, there are several langages that use indentation as syntax that predate Python. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-side_rule )
C came with an OS. C++ came with compatibility with C and at the peak or near peak of OO hype. Javascript came with the browser making it probably the most widely available language platform. Swift came with Objective-C compatibility, an OS, and money (iOS app store customers spend more on apps than their Android counterparts).
Coming with a platform that is widely available or compatibility with an existing language on a platform was the killer feature for each.
Yeah, this is a more honest assessment than the others I've read here.
Of course them being ISO(like) standards with competing implementations/tools was also important for C, C++ and Java as the cost to use and learn them was higher in the days before free open source languages, free tutorials and help forums became so wide spread.
But yeah official platform support and big company backing are a big part of why these languages have stuck around compared to others.
I like that theory, if I was going to counter it though, I'd say that I'm not sure those features match what language users talk about. For instance:
- C: Users often praise the simplicity of the language
- C++: Users often praise (not always praise?) the large feature set for a low level language
- Python: Folks talk a lot about "batteries included". Although in all honesty, I think having good interaction with other low-level languages is Python's secret feature.
- Java: Really leans in hard to object oriented programming
- JavaScript: Haha, you have to use it!
Not sure I'm really disagreeing with you though, but I think Java promoted its portability much more than it's ever been used (obviously there are cases like Spark which uses the JVM portability).
I believe JavaScript's was running in the web where Java could not (iPhones) or was considered too heavyweight (no startup).
Then it became the true extremely portable language, because developers wanted a single language to write webapps in, and it was easier to get JavaScript running on their server than a new language running on every browser.
Javascript didn't need a plugin, unlike Java, and could directly alter the page contents. One of the first heavy uses was Google Maps, interactive JS-based applications took off at that point. Then with an army of web developers (meaning in browser), Node took off when it handed them a way to work on the backend in the same language.
The iPhone came out after JS heavy pages came into existence, and might have accelerated the end of Flash and Java applets but the trend was already there.
Except for PHP I don't think that's a very fitting list. C for example, is not really a concise language, not even for its time - APL is much more concise. C is rather verbose.
Likewise, Python is not the first language without braces - and it debuted before braces became the industry standard. I guess ISWIM or ABC are the first to have syntactic whitespace.
Really, you will always find an earlier example for a "killer feature", at least in an academic context - in the case of your list, usually in the 1960s, in the 1970s at the latest.
An interesting example to look at is Java vs. Kotlin. While Kotlin is a bit easier and definetly more fun, it didn't manage to gain a big market share in the Java space so far. I guess that this is the case, because Java is good enough and seems to be the safer bet (at least for managers).
I tried to read this with an open mind but the premise of the article is so reductive I gave up quickly.
There’s a whole plethora of reasons a language might fall in or out of favour. From ecosystem lock in (eg Objective-C was mandatory for Apple development prior to swift and Visual Basic was ostensibly killed by Microsoft during the dot net upsell) to fragmentation in the community (eg Perl vs Raku). These don’t mean the languages aren’t “fun” nor productive.
Likewise, “fun” is such a subjective term that it’s utterly meaningless using it as any kind of yardstick. Esoteric languages are arguably the most “fun” but you don’t see companies running critical infrastructure on Brainfuck, Rockstar, nor lolcode.
And to say Pascal, Perl and Objective-C were false starts only demonstrates the author hasn’t used any computers prior to 2010. Perl was the de facto sysadmin language for literally decades. Pascal was the microcomputer language of choice before C++ took over (even to the extent that some 80s OSs are Pascal projects), Objective-C only disappeared because Apple introduced Swift. And the authors comment about COBOL being retired is untrue for anyone who’s worked on critical banking software.
I honestly think AI slop would have more value than this naive opinion piece.
Also, since I tend to loop back: yes, "fun" is subjective, and your points about Objective C and Pascal were actually mentioned directly in the footnotes, including the "false start" nomenclature, which came from Oram, not me, and I mentioned COBOL's specific remaining survival directly as well. Comments are always appreciated, of course, but they're best when they actually address the article they're commenting on instead of inferences. I get that the article's not short - I don't enjoy 300 word things that lack nuance - but even so.
I was programming computers in 1981. Pascal and COMAL were among my first structured languages. Your comment on the "naive opinion piece" is taken as it is offered, and I'm happy to offer you a full refund on your purchase price of the essay. :D
For quite a period up to LLMs, coders had high amounts of social power and gleefully asserted it by e.g. flouting dress codes and asserting their preference in tool choices. This is why we still see articles like this arguing everything from a point of view akin to that of a hobbyist, rather than articles by heads of engineering establishing that this kind of screwdriver is optimal for industrial automobile assembly.
Note: am a head of engineering, and I've been writing code both as a vocation and a job for decades. I see it from a lot of sides; maybe not EVERY side, I'm not a machine (yet), but I don't think I have a singular myopic vision of ANY of it. YMMV.
Hey, I actually made a point out of laughing about it even as I wrote it - see the footnotes. Haskell's dedication is actually quite remarkable and respectable, and it's not "against success" but against trading "correctness" for "success."
It's probably also the reason statistically no one will be employed to work on a Haskell code base. Same for Lisp, F#, OCaml, etc. They're the hot rods of the software development world where everyone uses SUVs.
I'm retired now but it never occurred to me the vocational languages I enjoyed most were all respectable or false starts (or obscure): FORTRAN, Pascal, Icon, Ada, Tcl.
And in hindsight, I only grudgingly accepted the immortals, although I recognized at the time they would be widely adopted: C, C++, Java, Javascript, and Python.
Is awk still respectable? Is it even a programming language?
> For the person who only wants the notes, the sampler wins the job outright, completely. It will never play the wrong thing or at the wrong moment. For the person playing, it fails, because driving it costs more than playing, and it never touches the art at all.
This entire essay could be about AI adoption as well. Some programmers love to program, and while AI is great at producing the code, it doesn’t really viscerally appeal if one loves coding itself.
It's not. The latest-and-greatest models on $200/mo subscriptions routinely produce bloated code full of boilerplate. They are incapable of producing elegant, concise, readable, correct-by-design code - they literally can't do it, even with the smallest samples, and it gets much worse as the scale of the implementation increases. You can't will the capability into them through prompts. You probably could do so with fine-tuning or other techniques, but I suspect that would just make the variance higher - and the average code quality would be much lower than it already is.
The code generated by LLMs is passable, but never truly good. The same is true for LLM-generated designs and architectures, just even more so. They are trained on all the code out there, and the percentage of really good code is so vanishingly small that it's incredibly hard to replicate even for humans after a lifetime of learning. LLMs would need to reach a next level of capability to consistently recognize good code. Generating it consistently is out of the question for at least the next few generations of the AI.
Not all code has to, or needs to, be good. LLM-generated code is useful and helpful. It's an incredible time-saver for one-off scripts, and you can make an LLM implement and maintain parts of the program you need, but don't care to make good at the moment. LLMs are very efficient (if we ignore externalities) and easy-to-use code generators, which is huge in itself. However, they are not great or even good at generating code.
Last weekend, there was a post showcasing a Rust library with utility functions for writing parsers. It featured a simple line-by-line INI file parser. I decided to rewrite it in Python with PyParsing, a library I happen to know well. GPT-5.6-Sol High wrote the grammar that worked. It was tragically bloated, poorly factored, and multiple grammar problems were masked by parse actions. It worked, but it was decidedly bad code. I then rewrote the grammar by hand, getting it down to 1/3 of the length, eliminating all parse actions, and improving error messages in the process. I then spent 2 hours trying to convince the model to perform the same refactorings I did, but had to give up: no matter what I tried, the model couldn't get all the needed changes to coexist at the same time. When it got the terseness right, it inevitably ruined error handling. When it got the grammar right, it ruined the factoring. And so on.
Later on, I decided to make the model rewrite the PyParsing grammar in Smalltalk's PetitParser - a pretty close match in terms of capabilities. I gave the model my version of the grammar. I told it to translate that Python code. It still butchered more than half of it, doing "optimizations" (the model's words) that replaced a cached production with a literal + 3 message sends in 8 places in the (trivial!) grammar. I explained what I value in the original code, why those are important features to keep, and tried again. It still couldn't give me an idiomatic Smalltalk translation, though it did get significantly closer. I concluded that the model has a very limited understanding of how concepts I wanted can manifest in actual code and called it a day.
To give you an idea of the scale: excluding blank lines and imports, the grammar is exactly 10 lines of Python...
So no - LLMs are not good at generating code. They are just fast and convenient, and again - that's huge. But it's nowhere near a level where it can be steered to produce good code - much less being able to generate good code by default.
(I realize this post is a bit off topic and it's just an anecdote - but I've experienced this daily for the past half a year; I'm not basing my opinion on just that last attempt.)
Yeah, definitely on point. I use AI for code generation, but I ride herd on it quite a lot and I limit scope viciously and with hard rules about what the models are even allowed to generate. It's worked out pretty well, but it's hardly the "oh send a question get a full system back" that people try to pretend it is.
OP here. Yeah, you're not wrong. A lot of what IS driving AI code is that the writing code part isn't the intriguing aspect: it's designing, and the code generation is the grunt work that makes the design happen. And then you find out that most humans aren't that great at design: most programmers handwave their way through specifications, and thus the AIs do what they're told, and generate utter dreck, a lot like some of the "melody generators" do - they get handed very artificial constraints about what "good melodies" sound like, so they all sound very ordinary, because they STILL lack soul and replace inspiration with algorithm.
It's ridiculous to call Objective-C "a false start".
1) Objective-C is 40 years old.
2) Objective-C was used to create NeXTSTEP and by extension Mac OS X and iOS.
3) Objective-C is no more "awkward" than any other programming language. I actually prefer its verbosity to Swift's terseness.
4) Although Swift did eventually become more popular, the claim about Objective-C that "the moment Swift existed, it evaporated" is not only false but a gross exaggeration.
OP here: Fair. Yet I'd say that it's relatively rare (while being completely absent in my experience) that anyone would choose ObjC today - and the article even mentions Pascal as a stronger example of the model you use with ObjC. ObjC survives today, as does Pascal, but its strongest impact is through influence, just as with Pascal.
And languages being awkward is entirely a personal opinion, agreed. You might think in ObjC. I do not. There's nothing inherently wrong with either of us on those grounds.
ObjC "failed" because it was locked inside the Apple ecosystem, and Apple made no serious effort to change that. Ref counting aside, I thought it was a wonderful fun language. But it was always platform specific in a way that other languages aren't.
Compare with C++ which is widely hated, not because it's virtuosic - it really isn't - but because it's a bug-prone incoherent pile of archaeological standards and object bureaucracy, and most users only work with their own personally curated subset of it.
It's true some people like C++. It's widely used because it runs very, very fast, and trades that for slow compile times.
But some people also like jumping off mountains and trying not to hit the sides. I'm sure it's quite a rush on the way down. But not ideal as a daily commute.
> Yet I'd say that it's relatively rare (while being completely absent in my experience) that anyone would choose ObjC today
There are a number of pragmatic reasons for this. Nobody is teaching ObjC anymore. Apple's documentation is now mostly Swift. Apple recommends Swift (and SwiftUI, despite the fact that many SwiftUI users have found it severely flawed). The job opportunities are mostly in Swift. I would say they're actually the same reasons people adopted ObjC back in the day. (Some other options were available, e.g., Carbon in pure C, Cocoa-Java.) Moreover, some newer Apple API are available only in Swift. Thus, Apple is pushing people into Swift whether they like it or not.
> There's nothing inherently wrong with either of us on those grounds.
Except that the thesis of your article depends on Swift being "more fun".
My belief is that Swift became popular among Apple developers for the same reason that Objective-C did before: Apple promoted the language. People jumped on Swift because they felt it was "the future". Some people were already claiming in 2014 that every line of code you write in Objective-C was "technical debt". Such claims turned out to be absurd, because old ObjC code still compiles and runs, while Swift 1.0 code does not.
Well, the problem here is in your own words: you say `My belief is` - and so it is. I cannot and would never presume to tell you what you believe. Yet I believe otherwise. Swift won on multiple axes; ObjC is still around but feels like legacy to me, much like Pascal does: influential (heck, I use ObjC terminology when describing OO concepts, over Smalltalk!) but not, like, a living language at this point even though its death might be, um, a lot more rumor than fact.
> ObjC is still around but feels like legacy to me
Yes, it feels like legacy because Apple is making it into legacy. Do you not admit that Apple's actions have a profound effect on the relative adoption of the two languages among Apple developers?
I would note that Swift is, like Objective-C, almost nonexistent outside of the Apple ecosystem, even though cross-platform use is possible. Developers who are deliberately outside the Apple ecosystem are generally not interested in a programming language controlled by Apple.
And yes, you're absolutely right. Apple is making a choice here, and they absolutely have impact on what the developers "get to use" - much as .Net succeeds largely to vendor choices on Windows, too. And developers get to suck it up! That's the three axis thing again: vocation, art, job. Swift and .Net both got a huge kick from the "job" department. That's how it goes.
> That's the three axis thing again: vocation, art, job. Swift and .Net both got a huge kick from the "job" department.
Granted, Swift got a huge kick from the job department, but what you wrote said a lot more than that:
> A language that makes life hard will not survive past the moment it can be replaced.
> Objective-C was awkward as both art and job, and it thrived for fifteen years because it was the only door into the most lucrative developer ecosystem ever built; the moment Swift existed, it evaporated and now survives as a shadow, preserved in its descendant.
Apparently you're admitting now that "the moment" is a gross exaggeration. You're also admitting that the "art" aspect is controversial, a matter of personal opinions that vary. I'm not sure why you claimed that Objective-C was "awkward as... job" even before Swift existed?
I wrote that it was awkward because IMO it was. That is indeed "my opinion" - I found the language it used to express concepts far more useful than the language itself, and found myself writing C++ far more often than ever wanting to write ObjC.
I've also researched languages and written a similar piece[1]. Most successful languages had adoption momentum outside of the language itself.
Conversely, there are many interesting failures—languages that were technically fascinating but ended up having their ideas stolen by later successful languages. A language isn't like a paper; it doesn't compete solely on the quality of its ideas
[1]https://www.makonea.com/en-US/blog/programming-languages-are...
> Sort the corpses that way and they separate cleanly
Just like when you get a bit of meat on the bone in a stew, and it all comes out as one piece - but it's just on the brink, and the slightest of touches with the fork is enough to make it separate cleanly, and it just slides off perfectly.
I love it when that happens. I really feel like the author does too. That's part of why I like reading things written by people. Shared enjoyment of a shared human experience.
I am not especially a fan of Python, myself, but I think most languages would LOVE to have a "bust phase" like Python does. If that's failure, failure's not so bad. :D
There's more to a language than the syntax. The libraries, tools, and the ecosystem of developers, documentation, support, etc. are much more important. There are quite a few academic languages that are interesting to people that never really gain much traction because the people behind them just never commit to proper ecosystem building.
Switching languages is a big time commitment. Or at least it used to be. I find myself more open to that now that I can hit the ground running with AI coding tools in most languages. But still, it's a time investment to learn a language, its idioms, its way of doing things, all the tools, libraries, and frameworks, etc. It's not something you do an in afternoon. And certainly not mid project.
The languages that people gravitate to are the ones that look like they are safe, future proof bets. If you are going to spend all this energy learning one, you want to know it's a good investment. Successful languages have lots of users, decent tools, good libraries, etc. Or at least they look like there are serious people behind them. Many people make these bets early in their careers and then stick to them as well. I meet a fair share of people my age that are still sticking to Java. Because that's what they learned when they were in their twenties. I'm 51 now.
Rust is a good example of a language that's hard to learn but managed to get off the ground because of the solid people behind it. It wasn't just an academic exercise: Mozilla was trying to solve a real problem and they managed to get a nice community behind the language and it grew from there. This is not something that happens a lot. People create new languages all the time. But many stay very niche and the projects around them tend to go stale very quickly if they fail to attract a community of users.
Even if you only consider the language itself, semantics, especially the type system, are more important than syntax.
> There's more to a language than the syntax
Is like saying there’s more to a hammer than being a hammer.
Maybe you’re pretending the hammer is Thor’s Hammer and going on fantastic adventures slaying dragons.
I’m just building a table.
I think the more appropriate analogy is there's more to a drill than the drill. When you buy a Milwaukee drill, because it shares a battery with other Milwaukee parts, it's easier to buy more Milwaukee tools.
So it helps to choose a drill brand with the ecosystem you like, not just one that's a serviceable drill.
(Or you could argue that a language's ecosystem is part of the dang language. Which I agree with).
I still attribute a rich OOTB standard library for Go’s success. You have an OOTB production capable web HTTP server baked into the standard library since practically day 1?
Have you never heard of Node.js where they got the idea from
Fair points, but those preferences seem more grounded in reality than the abstract reasons people say they love a language beyond its interface
Libraries and frameworks and package management absolutely matter. They're not some abstract thing, they could be the difference between something being done in 6 months or in 2 years.
Why do you think people put up with Spring?
Comparing a languages syntax to a saw blade is a bad analogy. A saw is a complete tool. Syntax is more like the teeth on the saw blade. The quality of the saw is not just about the teeth. It's also about the size and spacing of those teeth, the strength of the blade those teeth are on, the shape of the saw blade itself, the hardness of the metal, as well as the shape of the handle.
If you are just building a table then hopefully you are not trying to do the whole thing with a keyhole saw.
So 2 languages are the same if they have the same syntax but 1 is interpreted, and not safe, whereas the other is compiled and safe?
Where one has a large library and runs on many platforms, and the other doesn't?
Where one behaves like PHP with respect to equality, and the other doesn't?
The closer metaphor is the handle. A saw handle may be ergonomic, that doesn't mean the quality of the blade is good, or even suitable for what you're trying to cut.
I was hoping it would address Lisp.
Lisp is fun. The interactivity and instant turnaround of a Lisp REPL is still rarely matched in other languages. Common Lisp also solved a significant issue other languages didn't address well until much later: the ability to write high-level code that was fast on cheap hardware around the turn of the millennium.
Lisp didn't get popular around the turn of the millennium. Success stories like Naughty Dog, ITA, and Viaweb were rare, and the dominant languages seemed to be Java and various scripting languages starting with the letter P.
Hah! SO MANY LANGUAGES got skipped, even from my own CV. I wanted to address Louis/II, for goodness' sake, but it's a CODASYL tool, and not a lot of people remember CODASYL from experience. (Nor should they: I liked it, but... nah, RDMS won for good reasons.)
Lisp is certainly fun, and it lives today and is influential today in multiple environments; I have a Clojure app I work on for my own amusement. And it does have commercial appeal, but it's limited; the three axis thing applies.
I often hear about lisp but never actually figured out what tooling you need Is it interpreted or compiled language? Why should I use it instead of any other languages?
"Lisp" refers to several different languages in the same family, which contributes to the confusion.
Perhaps the default choice is Common Lisp which itself is specified in an ANSI standard and has several competing implementations. Some are compiled, some are interpreted.
Arguably the best is SBCL, which has a mature compiler and garbage collection. If you lean on implementation-specific features you can produce extremely fast code that approaches the performance of C in some benchmarks, but idiomatic and portable lisp is slower in practice.
>Why should I use it instead of any other languages?
The killer feature used to be the REPL. You can write the application function by function, and test the functions, data structures, or classes you write in the REPL as you're actively building the app.
Nowadays with LLMs writing all the code, I honestly don't see much reason to reach for lisp. Agents don't require a REPL, and other languages have vastly superior library support.
> You can write the application function by function ...
and then use JUnit or TestNG in Java, or similar features in other languages. Which you can automatically run, including showing code coverage, both with a button in your IDE and as part of the CI/CD process when you commit.
I really enjoy writing lisp but the ecosystem of libraries is a barren wasteland.
Try to find a TLS library for Common Lisp that doesn't rely on openssl, for example. Last time I looked the most mature library was marked 'experimental'.
I'm calling bull on this. Learning languages, at certain points, is always tedious. Whether that language is a computer language, or something like Greek, there comes a moment where "trudging" begins. The reason a person "trudges" is that they have a goal in mind that makes the trudging something to endure until that goal is achieved. Fun comes from not having to solve the same problem sixty times, or having to sort through a million files by hand when a program can do it in 3 seconds.
Hmm. I find learning fun, no matter what the scope is - even Greek, which remains obscure to me. (Quick, ask me something about Greek! I'll nod wisely and stroke my chin in deep thought and then get distracted and wander elsewhere.) But you're not wrong: there's a fun discovery phase, then a "hey, does this actually work" phase, and then a "crap, I need to figure out how to MAKE it work" phase, all of which are decision points where one might choose to not bother.
The stewardship and economics of the language can also be the issue. I started coding in the 80's and so web development for me evolved at the inception of the field. I will go to my grave insisting that Coldfusion was a better platform than PHP, but it was always commercial with a financial barrier to entry. PHP being free led to a glut of PHP developers, low-cost hosting, and an enormous ecosystem that ultimately redirected the course of the early web.
To add a few more exotic cases that affect things. Keep in mind that by default new languages fail. To succeed, many things have to all go right at once, and this implies that therefore there is not one single element that, if gotten right, means the language will therefore be successful (it's rather the opposite: If even one of the key factors is wrong, it'll probably fail).
* It's just a guesstimate, but one of those factors that caused java to be successful but-for (as in, if it hadn't had this, it wouldn't have been a success): It copies C style religiously anywhere it could get away with it. This caused some damage to the language that it has fixed in the past decade (such as the style and behaviour of `switch` being so bizarre - but it religiously follows exactly how it works in C!)
* Some languages end up failing partly due to community outlook. Scala is somewhat well known for having a core community that is highly aggressive and elitist, or to be a bit milder, to be 'less accepting of newbies with a limited understanding of programming concepts' than is optimal'. And in addition to that, they are in contrast to the java ecosystem ready to drop support for stuff quickly, meaning: Real life actual use of scala as a basis means you're either working with a hopelessly obsolete codebase or you're spending time refactoring it every other month pretty much. Scala's adoption is fading and never got anywhere near its hyped future.
* If a language is 'native to a platform' which I define as: "If the shepherds/owners of that platform were to write a basic app for their own platform, what language would they write it in? That's the 'native to that platform' language", then it tends to succeed even if it is not fun and not very well designed and even if transpilers exist. This is sufficient explanation for me for the success of javascript: It is the native-to-the-platform language if the biggest platform around.
These all fit within the thesis. They're all (last one is debatable) very human factors.
I would say that out of the box functionality (in the language itself or stdlib) makes a difference these days too. Older languages aren’t really subject to this, but new languages can be hard to justify bothering with if they require you to reach for third party libraries (and all the security issues, drama, etc those can entail) for somewhat common/basic functionality.
Yes to all that but still, my pet theory is that languages rise on one or two "killer features" that move the entire industry forward, and not the overall cuteness or lovability.
I can suggest a list of one killer feature per each popular language, i.e. things that these languages were the first to introduce and influence many successors:
C: extreme conciseness
C++: implicit destructors / RAII
Python: removed curly braces
Java: extreme portability
JavaScript: erm...
PHP: embedded in HTML by design
Rust: compile-time memory management
Swift: structured concurrency (pre-6 was probably just pure cuteness)
etc.
C++ succeeded because it was Object Oriented, people didn't start talking about RAII as C++ killer feature until years later
python succeeded because it wasn't Perl's TMTOWTDI, everyone expected ruby to overtake python, but .. for some reason that never happened
swift succeeded because apple pushed it to replace objective c, that if you consider swift succeeded
anyway, i agree with your premise, languages need one key strategic advantage feature to succeed, but you just got it wrong on few of them .. and if i am wrong too, then the premise is weak, if we are not sure what the killer feature is, we then have no idea why the language succeeded
I don't think C++ succeeded because it was object-oriented. I think C++ was object-oriented because classes were an abstraction that could layer on top of C with fairly low overhead, giving it more expressive power without much mandatory cost to size or speed.
In other words, object-orientation was the means, not the end.
Back then OOP was all the hype and inheritance was cool.
C++ predated the OOP hype cycle and triggered, or at least accelerated it.
Agreed and that's probably the second major killer feature of C++.
> python succeeded because it wasn't Perl's TMTOWTDI, everyone expected ruby to overtake python, but .. for some reason that never happened
Ruby allows (and to some extent encourages) unreasonable code.
It's not bad code (and in some cases extremely elegant), but it's code you can't reason about.
Being able to open any class (or object) and add new methods to it makes tracking how execution works extremely difficult.
The language allows for very undisciplined things to work - its great for the "scripting" and rapid prototyping - but unless you're going to throw it away the next day of having to maintain that code it starts weighing on the future speed of working.
Undisciplined code can be handled by making sure everyone on the team is disciplined in its use and documenting how things work... but that rarely reflects reality.
And so, you move to a language that enforces more discipline in how one uses it and is more reasonable in its execution.
C is not "extremely concise". Lisp, and especially APL both predate C and are more concise. To me, the "killer feature" of C is UNIX, we can't really separate them, C won because UNIX won and vice versa. Other than that it is reasonably concise, reasonably portable and reasonably low level. The language itself doesn't have any "killer feature".
For Python, I think its killer feature, related to the removal of curly braces is that it is a dynamic language (like Perl) that forces you to write somewhat readable code. You have no choice but to indent correctly, and there is a strong "pythonic" ideal way of coding, the complete opposite of Perl's "more than one way to do it".
JavaScript killer feature is obviously its integration in browsers but it is also well designed for this task, with pretty good support for asynchronous programming.
Still, I don't think any of these languages were successful for their "killer features", more because of a combinations of many things. In many cases, they weren't even the first. For example, there are several langages that use indentation as syntax that predate Python. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-side_rule )
C came with an OS. C++ came with compatibility with C and at the peak or near peak of OO hype. Javascript came with the browser making it probably the most widely available language platform. Swift came with Objective-C compatibility, an OS, and money (iOS app store customers spend more on apps than their Android counterparts).
Coming with a platform that is widely available or compatibility with an existing language on a platform was the killer feature for each.
Yeah, this is a more honest assessment than the others I've read here.
Of course them being ISO(like) standards with competing implementations/tools was also important for C, C++ and Java as the cost to use and learn them was higher in the days before free open source languages, free tutorials and help forums became so wide spread.
But yeah official platform support and big company backing are a big part of why these languages have stuck around compared to others.
I like that theory, if I was going to counter it though, I'd say that I'm not sure those features match what language users talk about. For instance:
- C: Users often praise the simplicity of the language
- C++: Users often praise (not always praise?) the large feature set for a low level language
- Python: Folks talk a lot about "batteries included". Although in all honesty, I think having good interaction with other low-level languages is Python's secret feature.
- Java: Really leans in hard to object oriented programming
- JavaScript: Haha, you have to use it!
Not sure I'm really disagreeing with you though, but I think Java promoted its portability much more than it's ever been used (obviously there are cases like Spark which uses the JVM portability).
JS despite its (many) faults still allowed a fairly functional style way before that was mainstream. Java and C++ only got lambdas decades later.
I believe JavaScript's was running in the web where Java could not (iPhones) or was considered too heavyweight (no startup).
Then it became the true extremely portable language, because developers wanted a single language to write webapps in, and it was easier to get JavaScript running on their server than a new language running on every browser.
Javascript didn't need a plugin, unlike Java, and could directly alter the page contents. One of the first heavy uses was Google Maps, interactive JS-based applications took off at that point. Then with an army of web developers (meaning in browser), Node took off when it handed them a way to work on the backend in the same language.
The iPhone came out after JS heavy pages came into existence, and might have accelerated the end of Flash and Java applets but the trend was already there.
Except for PHP I don't think that's a very fitting list. C for example, is not really a concise language, not even for its time - APL is much more concise. C is rather verbose.
Likewise, Python is not the first language without braces - and it debuted before braces became the industry standard. I guess ISWIM or ABC are the first to have syntactic whitespace.
Really, you will always find an earlier example for a "killer feature", at least in an academic context - in the case of your list, usually in the 1960s, in the 1970s at the latest.
An interesting example to look at is Java vs. Kotlin. While Kotlin is a bit easier and definetly more fun, it didn't manage to gain a big market share in the Java space so far. I guess that this is the case, because Java is good enough and seems to be the safer bet (at least for managers).
I tried to read this with an open mind but the premise of the article is so reductive I gave up quickly.
There’s a whole plethora of reasons a language might fall in or out of favour. From ecosystem lock in (eg Objective-C was mandatory for Apple development prior to swift and Visual Basic was ostensibly killed by Microsoft during the dot net upsell) to fragmentation in the community (eg Perl vs Raku). These don’t mean the languages aren’t “fun” nor productive.
Likewise, “fun” is such a subjective term that it’s utterly meaningless using it as any kind of yardstick. Esoteric languages are arguably the most “fun” but you don’t see companies running critical infrastructure on Brainfuck, Rockstar, nor lolcode.
And to say Pascal, Perl and Objective-C were false starts only demonstrates the author hasn’t used any computers prior to 2010. Perl was the de facto sysadmin language for literally decades. Pascal was the microcomputer language of choice before C++ took over (even to the extent that some 80s OSs are Pascal projects), Objective-C only disappeared because Apple introduced Swift. And the authors comment about COBOL being retired is untrue for anyone who’s worked on critical banking software.
I honestly think AI slop would have more value than this naive opinion piece.
Also, since I tend to loop back: yes, "fun" is subjective, and your points about Objective C and Pascal were actually mentioned directly in the footnotes, including the "false start" nomenclature, which came from Oram, not me, and I mentioned COBOL's specific remaining survival directly as well. Comments are always appreciated, of course, but they're best when they actually address the article they're commenting on instead of inferences. I get that the article's not short - I don't enjoy 300 word things that lack nuance - but even so.
I was programming computers in 1981. Pascal and COMAL were among my first structured languages. Your comment on the "naive opinion piece" is taken as it is offered, and I'm happy to offer you a full refund on your purchase price of the essay. :D
Perl is still in every Linux. I just checked one of my Oracle installs and there are 725 .pl files.
So it seems that is it still relevant.
exiftool is still best in class in its arena.
For quite a period up to LLMs, coders had high amounts of social power and gleefully asserted it by e.g. flouting dress codes and asserting their preference in tool choices. This is why we still see articles like this arguing everything from a point of view akin to that of a hobbyist, rather than articles by heads of engineering establishing that this kind of screwdriver is optimal for industrial automobile assembly.
Note: am a head of engineering, and I've been writing code both as a vocation and a job for decades. I see it from a lot of sides; maybe not EVERY side, I'm not a machine (yet), but I don't think I have a singular myopic vision of ANY of it. YMMV.
Heh, the article is kind of negative about Haskell's "success", but fun is exactly the reason why I still prefer Haskell over all other languages.
Hey, I actually made a point out of laughing about it even as I wrote it - see the footnotes. Haskell's dedication is actually quite remarkable and respectable, and it's not "against success" but against trading "correctness" for "success."
I'll be blunt about this:
It's probably also the reason statistically no one will be employed to work on a Haskell code base. Same for Lisp, F#, OCaml, etc. They're the hot rods of the software development world where everyone uses SUVs.
I'm retired now but it never occurred to me the vocational languages I enjoyed most were all respectable or false starts (or obscure): FORTRAN, Pascal, Icon, Ada, Tcl.
And in hindsight, I only grudgingly accepted the immortals, although I recognized at the time they would be widely adopted: C, C++, Java, Javascript, and Python.
Is awk still respectable? Is it even a programming language?
> For the person who only wants the notes, the sampler wins the job outright, completely. It will never play the wrong thing or at the wrong moment. For the person playing, it fails, because driving it costs more than playing, and it never touches the art at all.
This entire essay could be about AI adoption as well. Some programmers love to program, and while AI is great at producing the code, it doesn’t really viscerally appeal if one loves coding itself.
> AI is great at producing the code
It's not. The latest-and-greatest models on $200/mo subscriptions routinely produce bloated code full of boilerplate. They are incapable of producing elegant, concise, readable, correct-by-design code - they literally can't do it, even with the smallest samples, and it gets much worse as the scale of the implementation increases. You can't will the capability into them through prompts. You probably could do so with fine-tuning or other techniques, but I suspect that would just make the variance higher - and the average code quality would be much lower than it already is.
The code generated by LLMs is passable, but never truly good. The same is true for LLM-generated designs and architectures, just even more so. They are trained on all the code out there, and the percentage of really good code is so vanishingly small that it's incredibly hard to replicate even for humans after a lifetime of learning. LLMs would need to reach a next level of capability to consistently recognize good code. Generating it consistently is out of the question for at least the next few generations of the AI.
Not all code has to, or needs to, be good. LLM-generated code is useful and helpful. It's an incredible time-saver for one-off scripts, and you can make an LLM implement and maintain parts of the program you need, but don't care to make good at the moment. LLMs are very efficient (if we ignore externalities) and easy-to-use code generators, which is huge in itself. However, they are not great or even good at generating code.
Last weekend, there was a post showcasing a Rust library with utility functions for writing parsers. It featured a simple line-by-line INI file parser. I decided to rewrite it in Python with PyParsing, a library I happen to know well. GPT-5.6-Sol High wrote the grammar that worked. It was tragically bloated, poorly factored, and multiple grammar problems were masked by parse actions. It worked, but it was decidedly bad code. I then rewrote the grammar by hand, getting it down to 1/3 of the length, eliminating all parse actions, and improving error messages in the process. I then spent 2 hours trying to convince the model to perform the same refactorings I did, but had to give up: no matter what I tried, the model couldn't get all the needed changes to coexist at the same time. When it got the terseness right, it inevitably ruined error handling. When it got the grammar right, it ruined the factoring. And so on.
Later on, I decided to make the model rewrite the PyParsing grammar in Smalltalk's PetitParser - a pretty close match in terms of capabilities. I gave the model my version of the grammar. I told it to translate that Python code. It still butchered more than half of it, doing "optimizations" (the model's words) that replaced a cached production with a literal + 3 message sends in 8 places in the (trivial!) grammar. I explained what I value in the original code, why those are important features to keep, and tried again. It still couldn't give me an idiomatic Smalltalk translation, though it did get significantly closer. I concluded that the model has a very limited understanding of how concepts I wanted can manifest in actual code and called it a day.
To give you an idea of the scale: excluding blank lines and imports, the grammar is exactly 10 lines of Python...
So no - LLMs are not good at generating code. They are just fast and convenient, and again - that's huge. But it's nowhere near a level where it can be steered to produce good code - much less being able to generate good code by default.
(I realize this post is a bit off topic and it's just an anecdote - but I've experienced this daily for the past half a year; I'm not basing my opinion on just that last attempt.)
Yeah, definitely on point. I use AI for code generation, but I ride herd on it quite a lot and I limit scope viciously and with hard rules about what the models are even allowed to generate. It's worked out pretty well, but it's hardly the "oh send a question get a full system back" that people try to pretend it is.
OP here. Yeah, you're not wrong. A lot of what IS driving AI code is that the writing code part isn't the intriguing aspect: it's designing, and the code generation is the grunt work that makes the design happen. And then you find out that most humans aren't that great at design: most programmers handwave their way through specifications, and thus the AIs do what they're told, and generate utter dreck, a lot like some of the "melody generators" do - they get handed very artificial constraints about what "good melodies" sound like, so they all sound very ordinary, because they STILL lack soul and replace inspiration with algorithm.
It's ridiculous to call Objective-C "a false start".
1) Objective-C is 40 years old.
2) Objective-C was used to create NeXTSTEP and by extension Mac OS X and iOS.
3) Objective-C is no more "awkward" than any other programming language. I actually prefer its verbosity to Swift's terseness.
4) Although Swift did eventually become more popular, the claim about Objective-C that "the moment Swift existed, it evaporated" is not only false but a gross exaggeration.
OP here: Fair. Yet I'd say that it's relatively rare (while being completely absent in my experience) that anyone would choose ObjC today - and the article even mentions Pascal as a stronger example of the model you use with ObjC. ObjC survives today, as does Pascal, but its strongest impact is through influence, just as with Pascal.
And languages being awkward is entirely a personal opinion, agreed. You might think in ObjC. I do not. There's nothing inherently wrong with either of us on those grounds.
ObjC "failed" because it was locked inside the Apple ecosystem, and Apple made no serious effort to change that. Ref counting aside, I thought it was a wonderful fun language. But it was always platform specific in a way that other languages aren't.
Compare with C++ which is widely hated, not because it's virtuosic - it really isn't - but because it's a bug-prone incoherent pile of archaeological standards and object bureaucracy, and most users only work with their own personally curated subset of it.
It's true some people like C++. It's widely used because it runs very, very fast, and trades that for slow compile times.
But some people also like jumping off mountains and trying not to hit the sides. I'm sure it's quite a rush on the way down. But not ideal as a daily commute.
> Yet I'd say that it's relatively rare (while being completely absent in my experience) that anyone would choose ObjC today
There are a number of pragmatic reasons for this. Nobody is teaching ObjC anymore. Apple's documentation is now mostly Swift. Apple recommends Swift (and SwiftUI, despite the fact that many SwiftUI users have found it severely flawed). The job opportunities are mostly in Swift. I would say they're actually the same reasons people adopted ObjC back in the day. (Some other options were available, e.g., Carbon in pure C, Cocoa-Java.) Moreover, some newer Apple API are available only in Swift. Thus, Apple is pushing people into Swift whether they like it or not.
> There's nothing inherently wrong with either of us on those grounds.
Except that the thesis of your article depends on Swift being "more fun".
My belief is that Swift became popular among Apple developers for the same reason that Objective-C did before: Apple promoted the language. People jumped on Swift because they felt it was "the future". Some people were already claiming in 2014 that every line of code you write in Objective-C was "technical debt". Such claims turned out to be absurd, because old ObjC code still compiles and runs, while Swift 1.0 code does not.
Well, the problem here is in your own words: you say `My belief is` - and so it is. I cannot and would never presume to tell you what you believe. Yet I believe otherwise. Swift won on multiple axes; ObjC is still around but feels like legacy to me, much like Pascal does: influential (heck, I use ObjC terminology when describing OO concepts, over Smalltalk!) but not, like, a living language at this point even though its death might be, um, a lot more rumor than fact.
> ObjC is still around but feels like legacy to me
Yes, it feels like legacy because Apple is making it into legacy. Do you not admit that Apple's actions have a profound effect on the relative adoption of the two languages among Apple developers?
I would note that Swift is, like Objective-C, almost nonexistent outside of the Apple ecosystem, even though cross-platform use is possible. Developers who are deliberately outside the Apple ecosystem are generally not interested in a programming language controlled by Apple.
And yes, you're absolutely right. Apple is making a choice here, and they absolutely have impact on what the developers "get to use" - much as .Net succeeds largely to vendor choices on Windows, too. And developers get to suck it up! That's the three axis thing again: vocation, art, job. Swift and .Net both got a huge kick from the "job" department. That's how it goes.
> That's the three axis thing again: vocation, art, job. Swift and .Net both got a huge kick from the "job" department.
Granted, Swift got a huge kick from the job department, but what you wrote said a lot more than that:
> A language that makes life hard will not survive past the moment it can be replaced.
> Objective-C was awkward as both art and job, and it thrived for fifteen years because it was the only door into the most lucrative developer ecosystem ever built; the moment Swift existed, it evaporated and now survives as a shadow, preserved in its descendant.
Apparently you're admitting now that "the moment" is a gross exaggeration. You're also admitting that the "art" aspect is controversial, a matter of personal opinions that vary. I'm not sure why you claimed that Objective-C was "awkward as... job" even before Swift existed?
I wrote that it was awkward because IMO it was. That is indeed "my opinion" - I found the language it used to express concepts far more useful than the language itself, and found myself writing C++ far more often than ever wanting to write ObjC.
It's unclear whether your last comment is talking about the art or the job axis, the latter of which I just asked about.
I certainly don't see how using C++ would be less awkward on the job for developers than ObjC when the job was primarily calling ObjC system API.
I've also researched languages and written a similar piece[1]. Most successful languages had adoption momentum outside of the language itself. Conversely, there are many interesting failures—languages that were technically fascinating but ended up having their ideas stolen by later successful languages. A language isn't like a paper; it doesn't compete solely on the quality of its ideas [1]https://www.makonea.com/en-US/blog/programming-languages-are...
> Different diseases, one pathology.
> Sort the corpses that way and they separate cleanly
Just like when you get a bit of meat on the bone in a stew, and it all comes out as one piece - but it's just on the brink, and the slightest of touches with the fork is enough to make it separate cleanly, and it just slides off perfectly.
I love it when that happens. I really feel like the author does too. That's part of why I like reading things written by people. Shared enjoyment of a shared human experience.
Boom: JavaScript
Bust: Python
I am not especially a fan of Python, myself, but I think most languages would LOVE to have a "bust phase" like Python does. If that's failure, failure's not so bad. :D
Ridiculous.
If anything, the time of the ubiquitous JS might be over when anyone can generate native UI without electron.
Has been trivial to do for 10+ years. Next you’re gonna say I need RN or Expo to write JS for iOS.
JS ecosystem = capitalism, websites, payments
Python = math, language, theory