Why New Programming Languages Succeed Or Fail

Posted by samzenpus on Friday March 16, 2012 @12:09AM from the failure-to-thrive dept.

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister discusses the proliferation of programming languages and what separates the successful ones from obscurity. 'Some people say we don't need any more programming languages at all. I disagree. But it seems clear that the mainstream won't accept just any language. To be successful, a new language has to be both familiar and innovative — and it shouldn't try to bite off more than it can chew. ... At least part of the formula for success seems to be pure luck, like a band getting its big break. But it also seems much easier for a language to shoot itself in the foot than to skyrocket to stardom.'"

4 of 274 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nah! It's Facial hair... by jawtheshark · 2012-03-16 00:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Everyone knows it's the Amount of Facial hair

--
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
1. Re:Nah! It's Facial hair... by wilfie · 2012-03-16 00:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I dread to think what Grace Hopper looked like.
2. Re:Nah! It's Facial hair... by red_dragon · 2012-03-16 00:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I dread to think what Grace Hopper looked like.
  Clams may have beards too, y'know.
  
  --
  In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Re:Objective-C by AdrianKemp · 2012-03-16 00:39 · Score: 3, Funny

I assume you mean aside from Objective-C being one of the best languages available?