6 ms·

I think this could be a tad outdated. Given generic language tooling innovation (lang server, llvm, ...) it's possible to launch a language with good tooling.

I think this could be a tad outdated. Given generic language tooling innovation (lang server, llvm, ...) it's possible to launch a language with good tooling. Given, also, the ability to piggyback on jvm/.net/cpython-vm (cf. julia)/c ffi/.. its also possible to launch with libraries. I think today language popularity is a lot more about: (1) big name support; (2) killer app/library. If you can't get (1), and you're in the lang. game, i'd be looking at a (2). ie., solve some problem better than its being solved anywhere right now, in your language, in a way which naturally suits it. The opportunity cost (on using poorer solns) then forces adoption.

lmm 5y ago
Disagree; generic tooling is improving but it's a long way from being "there" yet, and FFIs have barely improved over the last 10 or so years; they make it possible to use libraries from other languages, but they don't (and maybe can't) make it idiomatic.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  I'm thinking of * Piggybacking: Scala/Spark, Typescript/Node, Exlir/OTP, ... * Features: Rust/Saftey, Go/IO, ... * Backers: Go/Google, Kotlin/Google, ... TS/Microsoft, ... You're right that tooling is more important than the intrinsic properties of the language grammer & operational semantics... However I dont think the stories of the above langs have been a story of tooling; in almost every case, quite the reverse.
  - lmm 5y ago
    As a Scala programmer the tooling was an absolutely vital part of the story. First-class Eclipse support (funded by one particular deep-pocketed company that was using it) was a huge part of Scala's early success, and when Eclipse started losing popularity (in favour of IntelliJ which never really had first-class Scala support, and since started pushing Kotlin) and the plugin stopped being maintained, the language stagnated and hit a slump that it's still not really recovered from. Things like Takipi (now OverOps) were also a huge part of why it was such a good language to work with and a big reason to choose it over the likes of Haskell.

lmm 5y ago

Disagree; generic tooling is improving but it's a long way from being "there" yet, and FFIs have barely improved over the last 10 or so years; they make it possible to use libraries from other languages, but they don't (and maybe can't) make it idiomatic.

mjburgess 5y ago
I'm thinking of * Piggybacking: Scala/Spark, Typescript/Node, Exlir/OTP, ... * Features: Rust/Saftey, Go/IO, ... * Backers: Go/Google, Kotlin/Google, ... TS/Microsoft, ... You're right that tooling is more important than the intrinsic properties of the language grammer & operational semantics... However I dont think the stories of the above langs have been a story of tooling; in almost every case, quite the reverse.
- lmm 5y ago
  As a Scala programmer the tooling was an absolutely vital part of the story. First-class Eclipse support (funded by one particular deep-pocketed company that was using it) was a huge part of Scala's early success, and when Eclipse started losing popularity (in favour of IntelliJ which never really had first-class Scala support, and since started pushing Kotlin) and the plugin stopped being maintained, the language stagnated and hit a slump that it's still not really recovered from. Things like Takipi (now OverOps) were also a huge part of why it was such a good language to work with and a big reason to choose it over the likes of Haskell.