[net.lang] Why do languages become popular?

dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (01/25/85)

<>
Recently I've begun noticing posters saying things like "Concurrent
Euclid is a great language - pity it isn't catching on like Modula-2"
and "FORTRAN is awful, but it's everywhere."  Why do some "good"
languages fail to become popular while inferior counterparts run
amuck?

I can think of several factors related to language popularity.  In no
particular order:

Age (the why of FORTRAN), especially when there is little or no
competition at the original time of introduction.

Ease of learning.

Ease of implementing.

Existence of good books on them (maybe??).

Existence of good implementations, especially free implementations.

Fads.

Support from a big organization (but that doesn't always work: consider
IBM and PL/I).

Random luck.

What do you think?  Should a "new and improved" language attempt to
meet these criteria in addition to "pure" computer science ones?
-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary

ted@scc.UUCP (Ted Goldstein) (01/30/85)

> Ease of implementing.

I gotta agree with you. I would say that ease of implementation 
is most important to the student community.  If a graduate or
bright under-grad student can implement a language
in a couple of quarters or a semester, than its a sure bet some 
Prof will have the undergraduates doing homework in it. 

Extensible languages are always popular. LISP and FORTH are the
two best examples.  Though many Algol-nics (all us C and Passquirrel-ers)
may consider extensibility as the inherent flaw in LISP and FORTH,
an extensible language never becomes out-dated. They have this
amoeba like property which absorbs whatever new programming
methodologies come along. For example, every modern LISP has 
Structured Flow-of-control constructs, and quite a few have object-oriented
hierarchical inheritence and modular programming.

The only thing that extensible languages seem to lack is syntax.
Actually, theres a thought.  Anyone know of an experimental extensible
language with complex syntax?


				Ted Goldstein,
				Freelance Consultant
				Santa Cruz, California
				(408) 662 - 3112


-- 

Ted Goldstein,
Freelance Consultant
Santa Cruz, California
(408) 662 - 3112

ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) (01/31/85)

<---take my line, please--->

Ted Goldstein writes:

> Actually, theres a thought.  Anyone know of an experimental extensible
> language with complex syntax?

Let me beat the partisans to the punch: sure, Ada.  Ada has *EVERYTHING*,
and *EVERYTHING* is complex.

Flames to /dev/null, are you so insecure that you have to see the tongue-
in-cheek to recognize a cheap shot?

=Ned=

kay@flame.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (02/09/85)

[]
>The only thing that extensible languages seem to lack is syntax.
>Actually, theres a thought.  Anyone know of an experimental extensible
>language with complex syntax?

Yes.  Last year we had an undergraduate student here (Crispin Goswell)
who has been developing a complete programming system (MLE) which has
as its implementation language a highly structured extensible language
with a complex syntax.  He's now left, and is currently attempting to
get the thing working on his father's BBC micro (a 6502-based personal).

I reckon he's one of the best programmers I know (plug, plug :-)), and
I am only sorry he's left.  If anyone's interested, I can mail a copy
of the JENNY PROGRAMMING REFERENCE MANUAL, and/or give them his 
snail-mail address.

							Kay.
-- 
Ceci n'est pas une article.
			... mcvax!ukc!ubu!flame!kay

jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (02/25/85)

>The only thing that extensible languages seem to lack is syntax.
>Actually, theres a thought.  Anyone know of an experimental extensible
>language with complex syntax?

See EL/1 (implementation:ECL), subject of many reports out of
Harvard's Aiken Comp Labs since the early 1970's.  I liked it.

Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{ARPA,UUCP}