Viability of Unpopular Programming Languages (2018)

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2018/04/17/unpopular-languages/

by rfreytag • 6 years ago

83 73 6 years ago

ChrisSD2• 6 years ago

I think what's missing from this post is who is using a language. For Haskell it's academics/researchers. For Ada it's the US government and associated industries. That's what makes niche languages viable, not overall popularity.

Of course if a language does not have a niche nor popular support then it's going to struggle more.

the_af• 6 years ago

For Haskell it's academics/researchers

Some real businesses use Haskell too.

Other than that, you have a point.

ChrisSD2• 6 years ago

Sure I don't want to diminish its use in business but my point was that its continued use by academics is what made it viable for some businesses. It likely would have died out if it relied on business (and other non-academic) users.

jfkebwjsbx• 6 years ago

Most known languages have a few businesses that use them. That does not mean is enough to be commercially viable, though.

Fellshard• 6 years ago

It's the same argument I would make in general: ubiquity does not signify popularity, and ubiquity does not signify quality. This is especially prevalent when a language becomes the 'de facto' sole option for a given environment.

tincholio• 6 years ago

cough JS cough

NextHendrix• 6 years ago

For Ada it's the US government

Ada is used widely in safety critical software outside the US

int_19h• 6 years ago

Out of curiosity - what are some recent examples (both government and private)?

Scarbutt3• 6 years ago

Yep, that's why Clojure struggling and has no future. Not strong in any domain and doesn't have any fundamental benefits over other dynamic programming languages like JS/Python/Ruby.

lmilcin2• 6 years ago

That is only if you try to program Clojure as if you were programming JS/Python/Ruby. In this case I can understand you may think this is funky, strange but otherwise useless language.

The trick with any Lisp is to "get it". Once you do there is no comparison between Lisps and any non-Lisp language.

Let's compare it in some useful way. If I was assembly developer for my entire life, "getting" C++ would be comparable to getting Lisp for any JS/Python/Ruby developer.

From my point of view JS/Python/Ruby is just a reiteration, variation on roughly similar, impaired subset of features that I can roll off in Lisp on my leisure. By definition, any language feature can be written in Lisp (well... more in Common Lisp than in Clojure which is hindered by its integration with Java environment) which is something that is really hard to grasp until you start rolling off your own language for any problem you try to solve (and one reason Lisp programmers are so much hated by other programmers).

dig1• 6 years ago

Clojure is not designed to appeal masses, but to solve complex problems and keep things sane. And if you notice around, specialized industrial tools aren't pretty, but are sharp.

Not strong in any domain and doesn't have any fundamental benefits over other dynamic programming languages like JS/Python/Ruby.

Don't get me wrong, but this can be said only by someone who never used it seriously or simply didn't get it. Reminds me on Scheme/Racket complains from students who took classes only for GPA or simply got in wrong university.

cultus• 6 years ago

People have been saying Clojure is dying for years, but there's plenty of people using it to great effect. I'm more productive in Clojure than in any other language, and I have access to a wide array of Clojure and JVM libraries. The power it gives me lets me spit out solutions to problems much faster than less expressive languages like Python. Perhaps you haven't really programmed enough in Lisps to really get the point of them.

fulafel2• 6 years ago

Looking at your post history, you seem to be on a mission against Clojure... is there a backstory?

dropit_sphere• 6 years ago

This is news to me as someone taking a break from a greenfield CLJS app to procrastinate on HN...

scottlocklin3• 6 years ago

In my experience one of the key differentiators as to viability is who is backing the software. Kx/Q or 8th don't even register on this TIOBE index, and are closed source, but are well crafted and perfectly viable because there is a profit making company behind them, and customers whose itch it scratches.

You can really tell when you're using an unviable language; big parts of it are broken, often in subtle ways that you can only find out about after heavy use, and the maintainer doesn't give a shit about your problems, even if your problems should be in the niche the language addresses. There are many open source languages which fit this description; some of which rank in the top-100 or even top-50 in this ranking system. By contrast, something like Awk with a relatively low rank may score poorly but will be viable as long as there are text files.

CSSer2• 6 years ago

Before I say anything, it’s probably worth noting that I write it for a living. Is it bad that while I was reading this I felt like you might be talking about JS? Or are we talking much more broken?

neonate• 6 years ago

I'd forgotten about 8th. Who are the customers in that case?

7thaccount4• 6 years ago

Good point Scott. A more difficult to capture metric would be "what software would you work with if you had the choice and could use whatever you wanted"? I really enjoy writing in array language (like K) and have actually had a blast learning 8th. So either of those would make me happier over the more common/traditional tools that I generally work with.

TurboHaskal2• 6 years ago

I actually don't personally know a single researcher using Haskell, unless you mean PL research, in which case I'd even say that Haskell isn't much of a hot topic these days.

DonHopkins2• 6 years ago

James Clark used Haskell to design and implement an algorithm for validating Relax NG XML schemas (he co-designed Relax NG, and designed its predecessor TREX), to work the ideas out before re-implementing it in (many many more lines of tedious brittle) Java (JING). Haskel works wonderfully as a design and standard definition language, that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_(programmer)

https://www.drdobbs.com/a-triumph-of-simplicity-james-clark-...

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2002-02-14-c.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14154049

DonHopkins on Apr 20, 2017 | parent | favorite | on: What programming languages are used late at night?

I got some insight into what's great about Haskell by reading James Clark's "An algorithm for RELAX NG validation":

http://www.thaiopensource.com/download/old/relaxng/20020531/...

This document describes an algorithm for validating an XML document against a RELAX NG schema. This algorithm is based on the idea of what's called a derivative (sometimes called a residual). It is not the only possible algorithm for RELAX NG validation. This document does not describe any algorithms for transforming a RELAX NG schema into simplified form, nor for determining whether a RELAX NG schema is correct.
We use Haskell to describe the algorithm. Do not worry if you don't know Haskell; we use only a tiny subset which should be easily understandable.

Text.XML.HXT.RelaxNG.Validation

http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hxt-relaxng-9.1.5.5/docs/...

Validation of a XML document with respect to a valid Relax NG schema in simple form. Copied and modified from "An algorithm for RELAX NG validation" by James Clark.

Clark Updates Jing - A RELAX NG Validator in Java.

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2002-02-14-c.html

James Clark has announced a new version of Jing with significant changes and revised documentation. Jing version '2002-02-13' implements the final RELAX NG 1.0 Specification and also implements parts of RELAX NG DTD Compatibility, specifically checking of ID/IDREF/IDREFS. James has "almost completely rewritten the validator using an improved algorithm. In the old algorithm, the state of the validation was represented by a stack of sets of patterns; in the new algorithm, the state is represented by a single pattern... The new release includes a documented API for Jing; in fact there are two APIs, a native API and JARV. James has rewritten the description of derivative-based validation to correspond to what's been implemented and to incorporate feedback received on the previous version from Murata-san and Kawaguchi-san... The Jing implementation is available for download as a JAR file and as a Win32 executable for use with the Microsoft Java VM.

dang• 6 years ago

Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16865506

MrK93• 6 years ago

With PHP and SQL in the top 10, I'd say that the TIOBE index is just plain bad. That is all folks.

Also, Rust is not in the top 20? Get out of here, TIOBE index!

Icathian• 6 years ago

SQL is in heavy use in almost every business and government agency. I'm not sure what your objection there is...

vlunkr• 6 years ago

The TIOBE Programming Community index is an indicator of the popularity of programming languages.

This is ranking of popularity only, not any measure of quality. Obviously PHP and SQL are more popular than Rust.

fortran77• 6 years ago

And higher quality. They have official specs, so there can be multiple suppliers. Competition leads to quality.

kube-system• 6 years ago

Languages that are in popular use often take decades to get there. Much of the software in the world has been there a while. The only thing surprising to me on this list is about how popular Go is after only a decade.

tcbasche3• 6 years ago

Yeah! "insert niche language that I use" isn't even number 1? That ranking system is just plain wrong!

tylerchilds2• 6 years ago

Me: Everyone I know uses _language_, this is trash!

Also me: First programming job.

epx• 6 years ago

You live in a bubble. Most of us do, but you didn't know ;)

Cybiote2• 6 years ago

It was interesting to observe that since this was written, both F# (from 67 to 32) and Lisp (63 to 29) have risen dramatically on the TIOBE index. Haskell has also risen from 42 to 39, though not as big a gain as the other two. Haskell now ranks above Apex while PL/I has fallen below the top 50, where Erlang has remained. I must live in a bubble since I was surprised to see TypeScript and Julia rank so low.

It's amusing from a trivia point of view but I don't think such a ranking should figure in any serious decision on what language to use.

Scarbutt3• 6 years ago

Typescript ranking so low compared to other languages just shows how flawed that index is.

tylerchilds2• 6 years ago

Is there a different index? Where are you getting your data?

ddragon• 6 years ago

There was a post last year [1] pondering about the tiobe methodology of "x programming" in the context of Julia, since the most common way to search for it is "julia language" instead. Adding that option makes both Julia and Typescript rise apparently.

[1] https://juliacomputing.com/blog/2019/09/16/tiobe-blog.html

hota_mazi• 6 years ago

It was interesting to observe that since this was written, both F# (from 67 to 32) and Lisp (63 to 29) have risen dramatically on the TIOBE index.

The TIOBE index is pretty much meaningless for any language below the #5 spot, under which the percentages are so infinitesimal that the ordering is completely useless.

For example, a jump from 63 to 29 means the market share for Lisp went from to 0.12% to 0.37%, and I suspect the error margin is several times that delta.

Cybiote2• 6 years ago

That's a great point. I also observed that and the fact ratings seem fairly volatile outside the top 10. I was only noting positional changes of the languages mentioned in the article over time.

Its main point of other reasons to to choose a language than popularity is well taken but I do not thinking making using of the TIOBE index as it does argues this well.

cousin_it• 6 years ago

TIOBE index methodology: https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/programming-languages-defi...

Basically they only look at number of search engine hits for "<language> programming". That's surprisingly meager. I think a better index of programming language popularity would use more signals: job listings, open source activity, stackoverflow questions, surveys of programmers and companies, etc.

Also it would be good to specify what's meant by "popularity". I'd be mostly interested in each language's share of paid programmer time, so the signals above should be weighted to get the best approximation to that truth.

ACow_Adonis• 6 years ago

I agree about specifying what's meant by "popularity".

Thing is I'm actually interested in the complete opposite of what you say you're interested in.

Couldn't care less about paid programmer time and the job market.

What do people use when they aren't getting paid by someone else to program? What do they write about? What would they like/want to use? Who's got the greatest grass-roots/continuing community not focused around apps, corporations and business sponsorship?

hnick• 6 years ago

There are also many languages that I would consider "supplementary", and Perl would be a good example. There are a few jobs where it's the main language but most listings I see have it as a nice-to-have or side skill language for things like a Devops hire that wants some kind of scripting but doesn't really care what (listed as an option alongside Python, Ruby, etc).

So in particular I'd say Perl is pervasive, but not a hiring differential. At least that's my experience looking at jobs.

nyankosensei• 6 years ago

https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2020/02/28/language-rankings-1-2...

labster• 6 years ago

Advocates consider Perl 6 to be a separate language but outside observers, like TIOBE, may not.

Now TIOBE says:

Some time ago Mantvydas Lopeta suggested to rename Perl 6 to its official name Raku. This has been done. Raku is now at position #115 of the TIOBE index.

TurboHaskal2• 6 years ago

What makes it viable for me in a professional setting isn't popularity, but rather any of the following:

- Is it a first class citizen for the given platform? (What C# is to Windows, or Objective-C/Swift to macOS, or C to UNIX, or JS to the browser) Really can't go wrong with this one

- Does it have a commercial vendor? (VFX Forth, SwiftForth, LispWorks, Allegro CL, MATLAB...)

- Does it have a standard? (Probably less relevant these days but still a big plus to me)

Things like libraries and all that I can do without. They're mostly terrible / too generic anyway.

Note that some languages I use such as Go, Rust and OCaml don't really check any of the above, unless you nitpick. But it's not like I'm writing software with those for the long run (I'm old enough in the industry to think in terms of decades, and I've been burned by hype trains before).

Viability of Unpopular Programming Languages (2018)

Related Stories