4 ms·

This argument reduces to saying that anything popular and widely used is actually better than anything unpopular but beloved by language enthusiasts. This simp

by jonahx 12y ago

This argument reduces to saying that anything popular and widely used is actually better than anything unpopular but beloved by language enthusiasts. This simply isn't the case. Many, many factors beyond merit contribute to language popularity and usage.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
You have to have a metric for 'better'. If its 'utility' then yes something popular is better than something unused.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  Even "utility" isn't necessarily identical with "popularity". I suspect, in many cases, by "X is better than Y", people mean enthymematically "X would be better than Y if we were to start using X instead of Y, even taking transition costs into account"; it would be the death of progress to dismiss out of hand every argument of this kind.
- drivingmenuts 12y ago
  Thus my motto for PHP: It's better than nothing at all. Usually ... FML.
  - ww520 12y ago
    Despite its warts PHP does have very valid merits that make it popular.
- jonahx 12y ago
  You're either saying something that is tautologically true (more popular things have more "utility" because they're used more because they're more popular), or is clearly false by any metric that a majority of experts in CS or language design, or even industry professionals, would agree on.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    How about "Sum ( usefulness for a purpose X number of instances its used for that purpose )"? Plenty of people would agree with that definition of utility. Something that isn't used at all (or much) has very low utility.
deeviant 12y ago
Even though the basis of your statement, "Many, many factors beyond merit contribute to language popularity and usage," is true, actually defining the merits of these lesser used languages seems to be something that their fervent supporters are poor at. To my (C-tainted ears), the affirmations of support generally tend to sound something like, "It's better because its (modern|buzzword|safer|buzzward|technobabble|compact)." I am not suggesting that these languages do not have tangible benefits, but I do wish their supportors would be a bit more concrete while describing them.
stormbrew 12y ago
I consider myself a language enthusiast, but I think that 'merit' in PL design is extremely poorly understood on a practical level. This idea that these languages became popular in spite of their apparent lack of merit is far too easy a way to stop thinking about what merits they might have that the oft-touted 'better languages' lack that drive people to use them. And this thought-stopper has to rest on an assumption that programmers don't want things to be easier/better/etc., which strikes me as unlikely.

by jonahx 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

You have to have a metric for 'better'. If its 'utility' then yes something popular is better than something unused.

Chinjut 12y ago
Even "utility" isn't necessarily identical with "popularity". I suspect, in many cases, by "X is better than Y", people mean enthymematically "X would be better than Y if we were to start using X instead of Y, even taking transition costs into account"; it would be the death of progress to dismiss out of hand every argument of this kind.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
Thus my motto for PHP: It's better than nothing at all. Usually ... FML.
- ww520 12y ago
  Despite its warts PHP does have very valid merits that make it popular.
jonahx 12y ago
You're either saying something that is tautologically true (more popular things have more "utility" because they're used more because they're more popular), or is clearly false by any metric that a majority of experts in CS or language design, or even industry professionals, would agree on.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  How about "Sum ( usefulness for a purpose X number of instances its used for that purpose )"? Plenty of people would agree with that definition of utility. Something that isn't used at all (or much) has very low utility.

deeviant 12y ago

Even though the basis of your statement, "Many, many factors beyond merit contribute to language popularity and usage," is true, actually defining the merits of these lesser used languages seems to be something that their fervent supporters are poor at. To my (C-tainted ears), the affirmations of support generally tend to sound something like, "It's better because its (modern|buzzword|safer|buzzward|technobabble|compact)." I am not suggesting that these languages do not have tangible benefits, but I do wish their supportors would be a bit more concrete while describing them.

stormbrew 12y ago

I consider myself a language enthusiast, but I think that 'merit' in PL design is extremely poorly understood on a practical level. This idea that these languages became popular in spite of their apparent lack of merit is far too easy a way to stop thinking about what merits they might have that the oft-touted 'better languages' lack that drive people to use them. And this thought-stopper has to rest on an assumption that programmers don't want things to be easier/better/etc., which strikes me as unlikely.