Hacker News·6 min read·hard

Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

J
jottinger
Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail
AI Summary

This article explores why certain programming languages succeed while others fail, arguing that social and economic factors often outweigh technical merits. It categorizes languages by their longevity and emphasizes that programming is a blend of vocation, art, and professional labor.

Andrew Oram wrote a two-part series for the Linux Professional Institute asking why programming languages rise and fall (parts one and two .) It says, roughly, that C, C++, and JavaScript are immortal (for now!), with Java a maybe; COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, and Perl lived respectable lives and got sent upstate to retire on a farm; Pascal, Objective-C, PL/I, Ada, and Tcl were false starts, with Ruby somewhere on the bubble. It's a good tour from a man who has been editing this industry's books forever, and near the end of it, Oram quotes Simon Peyton Jones, who observes that a language's adoption is "very weakly connected to its technical merits," and that the social and economic factors do the actual deciding.

Continue reading on Headlinne

Create a free account to read the full article.

Read full article →
technologyculture

Get the full story

Sign up for Headlinne to unlock AI insights, political bias analysis, and your personalized news feed.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in