5 ms·

This is probably why Stroustrup famously remarked "there are two kinds of language: the kind people bitch about, and the kind nobody uses."

danieldk 9y ago
It is easy to repeat platitudes, but the data doesn't really show it. Take the ten most popular languages: Java - slightly negative, Javascript - positive, Python - positive, C# - slightly negative, PHP - negative, C++ - neutral, C - neutral, R - very positive, bash - positive, Swift - positive. The interesting correlation here is that languages that are on their way out seem to be more disliked (Perl, Delphi, etc.). There are multiple possible explanations, e.g.: their usage is shrinking because they are disliked; or people dislike them because they are not 'sexy' anymore.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  You have to discount the age factor. Newer languages will always be growing compared to older languages, and early adopters are advocates rather than people criticizing their new chosen tool. To properly criticize something you first need to become intimately familiar with it.
  - 72deluxe 9y ago
    Oddly, this does not apply to C++ which has been steadily growing and growing in features, yet gets criticized for being "too complicated". Of course, you can get by knowing only the bits you need, and Stroustrup makes the excellent points in his hopl-almost-final PDF that newer languages are easier to "get into" because they haven't had years of having new features bolted on, hence they appear "simpler". A few decades down the line and they'll be in the same position.
    - fusiongyro 9y ago
      I want to agree, but C is even older than C++ and is definitely not in the same position. Ultimately, each language is different and the way they grow is different. C++ has just never been all that conservative about admitting new features. Their primary concern seems to have been the effect on the runtime performance of the binary, not whether the feature makes sense or mixes well with the existing features, or the effect on compilation time.
      - 72deluxe 9y ago
        This is very true. As I sit here waiting for my compilation to finish, I am reminded of the "speed" of compilation.
- danielbarla 9y ago
  I have a feeling that to a large degree, what the data seems to show is not an objective measure of how good a language is, but rather "languages I was forced to work with, when it wasn't my preferred language". The 3 most "hated" languages, Perl, Delphi and VBA, all fall into this category. The number of people actively moving towards them is probably far fewer than the number of people who are forced to pick up and maintain an ancient artifact in them, hence skewing the stats. In most cases, you can spot the pattern of old language being further to the right than the default, newer equivalent. What would be really interesting is watching this graph evolve over time. As an example, I suspect that initially, CoffeeScript was nowhere near as hated as this, and the hate is coming from falling out of vogue and having its maintenance shoved on developers.

danieldk 9y ago

It is easy to repeat platitudes, but the data doesn't really show it. Take the ten most popular languages: Java - slightly negative, Javascript - positive, Python - positive, C# - slightly negative, PHP - negative, C++ - neutral, C - neutral, R - very positive, bash - positive, Swift - positive. The interesting correlation here is that languages that are on their way out seem to be more disliked (Perl, Delphi, etc.). There are multiple possible explanations, e.g.: their usage is shrinking because they are disliked; or people dislike them because they are not 'sexy' anymore.

jacquesm 9y ago
You have to discount the age factor. Newer languages will always be growing compared to older languages, and early adopters are advocates rather than people criticizing their new chosen tool. To properly criticize something you first need to become intimately familiar with it.
- 72deluxe 9y ago
  Oddly, this does not apply to C++ which has been steadily growing and growing in features, yet gets criticized for being "too complicated". Of course, you can get by knowing only the bits you need, and Stroustrup makes the excellent points in his hopl-almost-final PDF that newer languages are easier to "get into" because they haven't had years of having new features bolted on, hence they appear "simpler". A few decades down the line and they'll be in the same position.
  - fusiongyro 9y ago
    I want to agree, but C is even older than C++ and is definitely not in the same position. Ultimately, each language is different and the way they grow is different. C++ has just never been all that conservative about admitting new features. Their primary concern seems to have been the effect on the runtime performance of the binary, not whether the feature makes sense or mixes well with the existing features, or the effect on compilation time.
    - 72deluxe 9y ago
      This is very true. As I sit here waiting for my compilation to finish, I am reminded of the "speed" of compilation.
danielbarla 9y ago
I have a feeling that to a large degree, what the data seems to show is not an objective measure of how good a language is, but rather "languages I was forced to work with, when it wasn't my preferred language". The 3 most "hated" languages, Perl, Delphi and VBA, all fall into this category. The number of people actively moving towards them is probably far fewer than the number of people who are forced to pick up and maintain an ancient artifact in them, hence skewing the stats. In most cases, you can spot the pattern of old language being further to the right than the default, newer equivalent. What would be really interesting is watching this graph evolve over time. As an example, I suspect that initially, CoffeeScript was nowhere near as hated as this, and the hate is coming from falling out of vogue and having its maintenance shoved on developers.