3 ms·

I think it's pretty obviously wrong to say that a language is unpopular (for a task) because it isn't good (at that task). Otherwise no one would be using java

I think it's pretty obviously wrong to say that a language is unpopular (for a task) because it isn't good (at that task). Otherwise no one would be using java, javascript, or c++; and lisp and haskell would be a lot better used. OSes aren't written in lisp because lisp isn't terribly popular, and subset of lisp programmers who are interested in OSes is pretty small--this is a much more interesting factor to look at than subset of OS programmers who are interested in lisp.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> I think it's pretty obviously wrong to say that a language is unpopular (for a task) because it isn't good (at that task). Otherwise no one would be using java, javascript, or c++; and lisp and haskell would be a lot better used. I think you are confusing "languages that are good" with "languages that you think should be good". I will admit that there are a fair number of programmers that are fashion-following zombies, but there are a large number who are not easily led by the crowd. If Lisp and Haskell were better suited for the bulk of real-world programming, they would be better used. (The alternative - that you're one of the enlightened few, and almost everyone else is a mindless sheep - may feel satisfying, but the very degree to which it is satisfying should make you more wary of accepting it as truth.) > OSes aren't written in lisp because lisp isn't terribly popular, and subset of lisp programmers who are interested in OSes is pretty small--this is a much more interesting factor to look at than subset of OS programmers who are interested in lisp. OS programmers in particular are not among those easily led by fashion. If Lisp gave them a real advantage, some of them would use it. ("Some" meaning "more than just Lisp Machines way back in the day".)
- earenndil 7y ago
  > I will admit that there are a fair number of programmers that are fashion-following zombies, but there are a large number who are not easily led by the crowd Perhaps not, but they are led by money. No one is hiring lisp programmers. > The alternative - that you're one of the enlightened few, and almost everyone else is a mindless sheep - may feel satisfying, but the very degree to which it is satisfying should make you more wary of accepting it as truth. I should hope that's not how I come off. My meaning was more that which languages are popular is more a result of inertia than anything. My impression from reading internet forums is that most people who use java and javascript are unhappy with those languages. > OS programmers in particular are not among those easily led by fashion. If Lisp gave them a real advantage, some of them would use it. And they do. OS programming is notoriously hard to get into, but even more so if you leave the beaten path. It's inertia again: everyone else is using c, and there's a lot of existing literature about how to write OSes in c, so that's what people do. Rust--which has recently been popular for hobbyist OSes like redox--and c++ were explicitly designed to support the same kinds of programming paradigms as c, so OSes written in them aren't indicative of a deviation from c. But those people who have enough expertise to move past toy OSes and stolen architecture can and do write OSes in other languages, like the lisp os I linked above.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > I should hope that's not how I come off. Well... you didn't really. You seemed to be somewhat in the neighborhood, which is why I mentioned it, but not really there, so I tried to be gentle. (I hope I came across that way...) > My meaning was more that which languages are popular is more a result of inertia than anything. To perhaps strain a metaphor, I think it might be more like a gas cloud gravitationally collapsing. You get denser regions, which have more gravity, so they are able to attract more gas and get even denser. In the same way, a language ecosystem that has more... something... attracts more developers, which makes it a better market for third-party libraries and how-to books and consultants and tools, all of which gives it even more "something". ("Mass" is the word in the analogy; I'm not sure what the word is for language ecosystems.) But for a project I'm going to start right now, it's perfectly rational for me to take that "mass" (or whatever) into account when choosing a language, because it means I can find programmers, and tools, and how-to guides, even if the language as a language is no better than the alternatives. I guess that means that I'm agreeing with you about "inertia". I don't think it's just mindshare, though. It's the ability of the ecosystem to help you get your project done. And the languages that attain that kind of "mass" are languages that were able to attract it when they didn't already have it (when they were just starting out), which is either some indication of merit, or an indication of organizational support. For organizational support, see Java (Sun publicized Java heavily, but also wrote massive libraries). For merit, consider C. (When it started out, it didn't have tons of publicity or great libraries. But it was good enough, and it was free. That was enough to start gaining a following.)

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> I think it's pretty obviously wrong to say that a language is unpopular (for a task) because it isn't good (at that task). Otherwise no one would be using java, javascript, or c++; and lisp and haskell would be a lot better used. I think you are confusing "languages that are good" with "languages that you think should be good". I will admit that there are a fair number of programmers that are fashion-following zombies, but there are a large number who are not easily led by the crowd. If Lisp and Haskell were better suited for the bulk of real-world programming, they would be better used. (The alternative - that you're one of the enlightened few, and almost everyone else is a mindless sheep - may feel satisfying, but the very degree to which it is satisfying should make you more wary of accepting it as truth.) > OSes aren't written in lisp because lisp isn't terribly popular, and subset of lisp programmers who are interested in OSes is pretty small--this is a much more interesting factor to look at than subset of OS programmers who are interested in lisp. OS programmers in particular are not among those easily led by fashion. If Lisp gave them a real advantage, some of them would use it. ("Some" meaning "more than just Lisp Machines way back in the day".)

earenndil 7y ago
> I will admit that there are a fair number of programmers that are fashion-following zombies, but there are a large number who are not easily led by the crowd Perhaps not, but they are led by money. No one is hiring lisp programmers. > The alternative - that you're one of the enlightened few, and almost everyone else is a mindless sheep - may feel satisfying, but the very degree to which it is satisfying should make you more wary of accepting it as truth. I should hope that's not how I come off. My meaning was more that which languages are popular is more a result of inertia than anything. My impression from reading internet forums is that most people who use java and javascript are unhappy with those languages. > OS programmers in particular are not among those easily led by fashion. If Lisp gave them a real advantage, some of them would use it. And they do. OS programming is notoriously hard to get into, but even more so if you leave the beaten path. It's inertia again: everyone else is using c, and there's a lot of existing literature about how to write OSes in c, so that's what people do. Rust--which has recently been popular for hobbyist OSes like redox--and c++ were explicitly designed to support the same kinds of programming paradigms as c, so OSes written in them aren't indicative of a deviation from c. But those people who have enough expertise to move past toy OSes and stolen architecture can and do write OSes in other languages, like the lisp os I linked above.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > I should hope that's not how I come off. Well... you didn't really. You seemed to be somewhat in the neighborhood, which is why I mentioned it, but not really there, so I tried to be gentle. (I hope I came across that way...) > My meaning was more that which languages are popular is more a result of inertia than anything. To perhaps strain a metaphor, I think it might be more like a gas cloud gravitationally collapsing. You get denser regions, which have more gravity, so they are able to attract more gas and get even denser. In the same way, a language ecosystem that has more... something... attracts more developers, which makes it a better market for third-party libraries and how-to books and consultants and tools, all of which gives it even more "something". ("Mass" is the word in the analogy; I'm not sure what the word is for language ecosystems.) But for a project I'm going to start right now, it's perfectly rational for me to take that "mass" (or whatever) into account when choosing a language, because it means I can find programmers, and tools, and how-to guides, even if the language as a language is no better than the alternatives. I guess that means that I'm agreeing with you about "inertia". I don't think it's just mindshare, though. It's the ability of the ecosystem to help you get your project done. And the languages that attain that kind of "mass" are languages that were able to attract it when they didn't already have it (when they were just starting out), which is either some indication of merit, or an indication of organizational support. For organizational support, see Java (Sun publicized Java heavily, but also wrote massive libraries). For merit, consider C. (When it started out, it didn't have tons of publicity or great libraries. But it was good enough, and it was free. That was enough to start gaining a following.)