Resumo de Being Popular

A friend of mine once told an eminent operating systems expert that he wanted to design a really good programming language. The expert told him that it would be a waste of time, that programming languages don''t become popular or unpopular based on their merits, and so no matter how good his language was, no one would use it. At least, that was what had happened to the language he had designed.

What does make a language popular? Do popular languages deserve their popularity? Is it worth trying to define a good programming language? How would you do it?

I think the answers to these questions can be found by looking at hackers, and learning what they want. Programming languages are for hackers, and a programming language is good as a programming language (rather than, say, an exercise in denotational semantics or compiler design) if and only if hackers like it.

1 The Mechanics of Popularity

It''s true, certainly, that most people don''t choose programming languages simply based on their merits. Most programmers are told what language to use by someone else. And yet I think the effect of such external factors on the popularity of programming languages is not as great as it''s sometimes thought to be. I think a bigger problem is that a hacker''s idea of a good programming language is not the same as most language designers''.

Between the two, the hacker''s opinion is the one that matters. Programming languages are not theorems. They''re tools, designed for people, and they have to be designed to suit human strengths and weaknesses as much as shoes have to be designed for human feet. If a shoe pinches when you put it on, it''s a bad shoe, however elegant it may be as a piece of sculpture.

It may be that the majority of programmers can''t tell a good language from a bad one. But that''s no different with any other tool. It doesn''t mean that it''s a waste of time to try designing a good language. Expert hackers can tell a good language when they see one, and they''ll use it. Expert hackers are a tiny minority, admittedly, but that tiny minority write all the good software, and their influence is such that the rest of the programmers will tend to use whatever language they use. Often, indeed, it is not merely influence but command: often the expert hackers are the very people who, as their bosses or faculty advisors, tell the other programmers what language to use.

The opinion of expert hackers is not the only force that determines the relative popularity of programming languages-- legacy software (Cobol) and hype (Ada, Java) also play a role-- but I think it is the most powerful force over the long term. Given an initial critical mass and enough time, a programming language probably becomes about as popular as it deserves to be. And popularity further separates good languages from bad ones, because feedback from real live users always leads to improvements. Look at how much any popular language has changed during its life. Perl and Fortran are extreme cases, but even Lisp has changed a lot. Lisp 1.5 didn''t have macros, for example; these evolved later, after hackers at MIT had spent a couple years using Lisp to write real programs. <1>

So whether or not a language has to be good to be popular, I think a language has to be popular to be good. And it has to stay popular to stay good. The state of the art in programming languages doesn''t stand still. And yet the Lisps we have today are still pretty much what they had at MIT in the mid-1980s, because that''s the last time Lisp had a sufficiently large and demanding user base.

Of course, hackers have to know about a language before they can use it. How are they to hear? From other hackers. But there has to be some initial group of hackers using the language for others even to hear about it. I wonder how large this group has to be; howOff the top of my head, I''d say twenty. If a language had twenty separate users, meaning twenty users who decided on their own to use it, I''d consider it to be real.

Getting there can''t be easy. I would not be surprised if it is harder to get from zero to twenty than from twenty to a thousand. The best way to get those initial twenty users is probably to use a trojan horse: to give people an application they want, which happens to be written in the new language.

2 External Factors

Let''s start by acknowledging one external factor that does affect the popularity of a programming language. To become popular, a programming language has to be the scripting language of a popular system. Fortran and Cobol were the scripting languages of early IBM mainframes. C was the scripting language of Unix, and so, later, was Perl. Tcl is the scripting language of Tk. Java and Javascript are intended to be the scripting languages of web browsers.

Lisp is not a massively popular language because it is not the scripting language of a massively popular system. What popularity it retains dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, when it was the scripting language of MIT. A lot of the great programmers of the day were associated with MIT at some point. And in the early 1970s, before C, MIT''s dialect of Lisp, called MacLisp, was one of the only programming languages a serious hacker would want to use.

Today Lisp is the scripting language of two moderately popular systems, Emacs and Autocad, and for that reason I suspect that most of the Lisp programming done today is done in Emacs Lisp or AutoLisp.

Programming languages don''t exist in isolation. To hack is a transitive verb-- hackers are usually hacking something-- and in practice languages are judged relative to whatever they''re used to hack. So if you want to design a popular language, you either have to supply more than a language, or you have to design your language to replace the scripting language of some existing system.

Common Lisp is unpopular partly because it''s an orphan. It did originally come with a system to hack: the Lisp Machine. But Lisp Machines (along with parallel computers) were steamrollered by the increasing power of general purpose processors in the 1980s. Common Lisp might have remained popular if it had been a good scripting language for Unix. It is, alas, an atrociously bad one.

One way to describe this situation is to say that a language isn''t judged on its own merits. Another view is that a programming language really isn''t a programming language unless it''s also the scripting language of something. This only seems unfair if it comes as a surprise. I think it''s no more unfair than expecting a programming language to have, say, an implementation. It''s just part of what a programming language is.

A programming language does need a good implementation, of course, and this must be free. Companies will pay for software, but individual hackers won''t, and it''s the hackers you need to attract.

A language also needs to have a book about it. The book should be thin, well-written, and full of good examples. K&R is the ideal here. At the moment I''d almost say that a language has to have a book published by O''Reilly. That''s becoming the test of mattering to hackers.

There should be online documentation as well. In fact, the book can start as online documentation. But I don''t think that physical books are outmoded yet. Their format is convenient, and the de facto censorship imposed by publishers is a useful if imperfect filter. Bookstores are one of the most important places for learning about new languages.

3 Brevity

Given that you can supply the three things any language needs-- a free implementation, a book, and something to hack-- how do you make a language that hackers will

Resumos Relacionados