The specialized languages are a pain, but a single language that tries to be everything to everyone tends to be more of a pain. That's because it can't speciali

The specialized languages are a pain, but a single language that tries to be everything to everyone tends to be more of a pain. That's because it can't specialize, it has to adopt the lowest common denominator approach. As a result it's unlikely to be the best in any given area (sometimes it happens, but rare in my experience). Where this hurts the most is in hiring. To get a job with Google you'll either learn one of these really well and so only be able to apply to one area of Google, or you'll learn several of them but not go in depth as much in the same amount of time and be able to apply to many different areas of Google. Your idea of a limited language ecosystem (a languages for each of system, web, and metal-to-abstraction) is a good idea, but I think it still invokes the LCD problem. Though nowhere near as much. It would not surprise me that much if we hit the extreme of specialization, with a specialized language for each slot of the {mobile, server, desktop UI, IoT} x {each of the seven layers of the OSI stack}. As I wrote that I was thinking you could create Karnaugh map like depictions of languages to show what areas they cover. I think a very varied programming language ecosystem is a good thing, and we're never going to get a one size fits all language, but there's a balance needed. The jury is still out and I'll have to see if it turns out well.