"spir" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 02/02/2011 10:37 PM, bearophile wrote: >> If a person looks at the history of computer languages, she sees >> thousands of languages. Many of them were lot of work to be created, and >> most of them have failed, over and over again. This has happened even to >> languages better than many other languages present at their time, and >> when you see this you get sad. > > Like in any other domain in our civilisation, the (hum) "success" (in > social sense: fame, power, money) of a programming language has exactly > nothing to do > with its quality. > Actually, I rather think the opposite: that deep reasons allowing the > creation of a Good Thing play against its social success (could hardly > explain this clearly); and conversely. I would for instance blindly bet > 1000? (or $, or £) that in, say, 18 months, Go will have reached a higher > level of success D will ever reach. Nothing to do with quality. > I also bet Go not only will never be a good language, compared to other > modern ones in the same field, but will quickly become a big mess, and > worse and worse; while loads of people will sing for its fame (and more > and more of them, more and more loudly). >
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. That's exactly what happened with Java.
