4 ms·

I don't see why language quality should have anything to do at all with mainstream usage. PHP can be considered a mainstream language today. Even COBOL in some

• AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Well... for a language to succeed long-term, it needs to be either significantly better than the alternatives (at some particular kind of use), or else it needs to be entrenched in existing code. When C began to spread, it was significantly better than alternatives for writing operating systems and associated tools on commodity hardware. Part of that "better" was cost - cost of the machines it ran on, cost of buying a compiler, and cost of implementing a compiler. (The mistake the anti-C people make in saying "but other languages were so much better!" is that they forget that cost was part of "better".) C became entrenched in Unix and, later, Windows. But it didn't start entrenched. It started by being better. If Lisp were significantly better, with everything considered, it should have won by now. I mean, yes, there are a lot of people chasing the current hotness. But the programming profession is not made up entirely of fools and sheep. Better languages get noticed, get used, acquire momentum. (Note well, however, that "better" again is "better with all things considered" - it doesn't equate to "better" as defined by theorists who about how much better their language is, even though it's a little-used language.)
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• criddell 9y ago
  According to TIOBE, in 1987 only C was more popular than Lisp. Thirty years later, C is #2 and Lisp is #31. Lisp was mainstream and for some reason other languages overtook it. I think it's a good question.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]