Recent

Author Topic: programming languages history  (Read 1426 times)

440bx

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3021
programming languages history
« on: June 02, 2022, 02:18:03 am »
This is a link to a youtube video that shows the ups and downs of programming languages popularity from 1965 to 2019

I found it to be entertaining and educational, I thought others might too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og847HVwRSI

Enjoy!
FPC v3.0.4 and Lazarus 1.8.2 on Windows 7 64bit.

friend

  • Guest
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2022, 05:38:49 am »
Interesting. The first few items in the graph in recent years, after 2012, can go straight to hell.

Zvoni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2022, 08:29:07 am »
Interesting. The first few items in the graph in recent years, after 2012, can go straight to hell.
Not having watched the video, let me guess: DOT. CRAP?
One System to rule them all, One Code to find them,
One IDE to bring them all, and to the Framework bind them,
in the Land of Redmond, where the Windows lie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Code is like a joke: If you have to explain it, it's bad

friend

  • Guest
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2022, 09:12:07 am »
Not having watched the video, let me guess: DOT. CRAP?

One of them is C#, which is part of something that, after 2015 or so, has been renamed to .CRAP, previously called BotNetCore, previously known as .NET Framework -- before M$'s recent large efforts of Embrace and Extension of open source software.
P*thon, J*va, J*vaScript and similar types of manure, are at the top of the list. Damn all of them.

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10288
  • FPC developer.
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2022, 09:20:09 am »
I wonder why they got their data. IMHO the rise of C and Ada is a bit early in the mid eighties, and Ada is way to dominant. 

Also C was rising to dominance when there wasn't even a bulk compiler for the Dos target, as Turbo C came in 1987 (according to Wikipedia, I never saw it in the wild) and Turbo C++ came only in 1990. Weird again.

That said, C wasn't on my radar in that period (other than on Unix), so I might have missed clues about its dos history.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2022, 09:23:33 am by marcov »

440bx

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3021
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2022, 10:30:59 am »
I wonder why they got their data. IMHO the rise of C and Ada is a bit early in the mid eighties, and Ada is way to dominant. 
I wondered where they got their data too.  I know Ada enjoyed some popularity at one time but, I never got the impression that it was the #1 language out there.

Another "peculiarity" I found interesting is that they show "Delphi" as being a programming language and, a separate one from Pascal at that.

Popularity numbers have to be taken with a small "Himalayas sized" grain of salt (that should be enough salt for a while...)
FPC v3.0.4 and Lazarus 1.8.2 on Windows 7 64bit.

MarkMLl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5146
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2022, 10:41:56 am »
P*thon, J*va, J*vaScript and similar types of manure, are at the top of the list. Damn all of them.

Careful please: we can do without unsubstantiated opinions which contribute to a flame war.

I've got an open mind on Java, and it must be admitted that both Java and Javascript have filled the role of "questionable prototypes" on which people have built improved versions.

As far as Python goes: it's a pragmatic solution as a "glue language", but I have personal reasons for disliking its "whitespace is significant" notation based on seeing somebody's business getting thoroughly screwed when they attempted to use that sort of thing as part of a data storage model. But I point out this from Ken Thompson:

Quote
However, we have had extensive experience tracking down build and test failures caused by cross-language builds where a Python snippet embedded in another language, for instance through a SWIG invocation, is subtly and invisibly broken by a change in the indentation of the surrounding code. Our position is therefore that, although spaces for indentation is nice for small programs, it doesn't scale well, and the bigger and more heterogeneous the code base, the more trouble it can cause. It is better to forgo convenience for safety and dependability, so Go has brace-bounded blocks.
  https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article

And I think that's a significantly important point to substantiate my revulsion :-)

MarkMLl
MT+86 & Turbo Pascal v1 on CCP/M-86, multitasking with LAN & graphics in 128Kb.
Pet hate: people who boast about the size and sophistication of their computer.
GitHub repositories: https://github.com/MarkMLl?tab=repositories

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10288
  • FPC developer.
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2022, 10:44:58 am »
I wonder why they got their data. IMHO the rise of C and Ada is a bit early in the mid eighties, and Ada is way to dominant. 
I wondered where they got their data too.  I know Ada enjoyed some popularity at one time but, I never got the impression that it was the #1 language out there.

The US DOD switched to ADA somewhere in the late eighties for a while. If it is some pre internet US job advertisement based index, that could explain a spike in interest, but even then there is a difference between using and starting a language.   I know in France there are also still quite some Ada holdouts. (leftovers of France's Nuclear industry?).

Not even to speak of the fact that there is also a world outside of the USA. Quite some stats don't say anything, but only use US based stats.

But yeah, it is like the TIOBE index criticisms on steroids. I can't blame Tiobe about the USA stats thing, as they are apparently situated in the town where i live ;-)

MarkMLl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5146
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2022, 11:01:10 am »
I wonder why they got their data. IMHO the rise of C and Ada is a bit early in the mid eighties, and Ada is way to dominant.

In my opinion, the significance of Ada- and for that matter things like OS/2 and mainframe OSes- has to be weighted by its overall significance in industry. Rather than the "easy metrics" of column-inches or "number of people I know who use it" a better gauge might be column-inches multiplied by the advertising rate of the journal etc. in which the piece is published.

By analogy, AutoCAD and CATIA don't get many column-inches in the sort of things that most of us read, and they have minimal presence on Sourceforge and Github. But from the POV of industry as a whole, they're /very/ significant.

Quote

Also C was rising to dominance when there wasn't even a bulk compiler for the Dos target, as Turbo C came in 1987 (according to Wikipedia, I never saw it in the wild) and Turbo C++ came only in 1990. Weird again.

That said, C wasn't on my radar in that period (other than on Unix), so I might have missed clues about its dos history.

C was pretty much dominant by '87. Grey Matter easily had a dozen affordable compilers in its catalogue, and library bundles were typically sold tailored for a specific compiler and (in the case of x86) memory model. Add to that the extreme importance of timesharing minicomputers etc. by that point: if a system was based on "a unix" then technical users were likely to believe that the only usable language was C which obviously had an impact on the "significance" metric.

MarkMLl
MT+86 & Turbo Pascal v1 on CCP/M-86, multitasking with LAN & graphics in 128Kb.
Pet hate: people who boast about the size and sophistication of their computer.
GitHub repositories: https://github.com/MarkMLl?tab=repositories

BlueIcaro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 723
    • My github
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2022, 11:14:38 am »
I show that video this morning. I don't know why Delphi is called a lenguage. Delphi is a product, not a lenguage.

/BlueIcaro

trev

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Former Delphi 1-7, 10.2 user
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2022, 11:18:39 am »
C was pretty much dominant by '87.

Yep, I was using Datalight C (later Zortech C) by Walter Bright at that time to write Opus BBS DOS utilities. There was also the Microsoft C Compiler, but I couldn't afford that and Datalight C was compatible enough to compile various bits of MSC I needed.
Lazarus 2.3, FPC 3.3.1 macOS 12.3.1 x86_64 Xcode 13.4
Lazarus 2.3, FPC 3.3.1 macOS 12.3.1 aarch64 Xcode 13.4

MarkMLl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5146
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2022, 11:33:38 am »
Yep, I was using Datalight C (later Zortech C) by Walter Bright at that time to write Opus BBS DOS utilities. There was also the Microsoft C Compiler, but I couldn't afford that and Datalight C was compatible enough to compile various bits of MSC I needed.

A major point was the introduction of MS Visual Basic, followed by Visual C++ a year or so later. That emphasised the question of whether it was necessary or desirable to have a single product that could do both high- and low-level programming: VB (at least in that era) couldn't be used to write on-screen components hence despite Gates's belief that BASIC was the language of the future serious programmers did in practice need to use both.

That question continues with Object Pascal (good for both high- and low-level programming) as well as with "glue" languages such as Python and Perl which rely heavily on libraries implemented by their betters.

MarkMLl
MT+86 & Turbo Pascal v1 on CCP/M-86, multitasking with LAN & graphics in 128Kb.
Pet hate: people who boast about the size and sophistication of their computer.
GitHub repositories: https://github.com/MarkMLl?tab=repositories

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10288
  • FPC developer.
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2022, 11:37:04 am »
In my opinion, the significance of Ada- and for that matter things like OS/2 and mainframe OSes- has to be weighted by its overall significance in industry. 

and

Quote
By analogy, AutoCAD and CATIA don't get many column-inches in the sort of things that most of us read, and they have minimal presence on Sourceforge and Github. But from the POV of industry as a whole, they're /very/ significant.

If you ask, indeed domain specific languages are often excluded from the stats as less substitutable. But even with general purpose languages, in my experience people talk (and probably respond in questionaries) more what they'd like or plan to use than what they are actually using, specially when the latter is considered dull.

Contrary to the eighties where my view was somewhat limited, I do have some recollections from the late nineties client-server era when people talked about hardcore C++, while they were crafting apps in Delphi (or, more likely, VB). Also during the dot com boom, people were talking about all kinds of fancy new language and framework , but if you really asked what they used in production, it was some cobbled together templating system. Quite often homemade.

I sometimes heard echoes of that era in the javascript world, specially say 5-10 years ago.

Quote

C was pretty much dominant by '87. Grey Matter easily had a dozen affordable compilers in its catalogue, and library bundles were typically sold tailored for a specific compiler and (in the case of x86) memory model.

But the late eigthies and early nineties were the dos heyday, and I doubt the bulk of the dos era software was in plain C? But I spent that era mostly in an non IT academic bubble in the NL, so that might have skewed the picture.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2022, 11:39:06 am by marcov »

MarkMLl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5146
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2022, 11:59:36 am »
If you ask, indeed domain specific languages are often excluded from the stats as less substitutable. But even with general purpose languages, in my experience people talk (and probably respond in questionaries) more what they'd like or plan to use than what they are actually using, specially when the latter is considered dull.

You've also got the situation that people in corporates might not get the questionnaires or having got them might be reluctant or unable to discuss what they were doing. I speak from experience here: by and large stuff from the IEE or IEEE (not to mention academic journals) didn't solicit feedback other than an annual salary survey, and the corporate environment would traditionally have frowned on /any/ disclosure of what people were working on or with even if ostensibly anonimised: it just /wasn't/ /done/ except in the context of vetted conference presentations etc.

Quote
But the late eigthies and early nineties were the dos heyday, and I doubt the bulk of the dos era software was in plain C? But I spent that era mostly in an non IT academic bubble in the NL, so that might have skewed the picture.

Finger in air guess: 40% of the compilers and libraries I saw sold circa 1989 were for MS BASIC (QuickBasic, VB for Windows or rarely VB for DOS). 35% was for one of the C compilers including MS VC++. 20% was for Turbo Pascal. 5% for the remainder including Modula-2 etc.

Pascal's share improved slightly when Delphi came out, but I suggest that was at the expense of the non-Windows BASIC and "other" categories above since once somebody had started investing in VB or VC++ for Windows they were pretty much committed: unless the vendor hiked the prices and was seen to be milking the market.

MarkMLl
MT+86 & Turbo Pascal v1 on CCP/M-86, multitasking with LAN & graphics in 128Kb.
Pet hate: people who boast about the size and sophistication of their computer.
GitHub repositories: https://github.com/MarkMLl?tab=repositories

friend

  • Guest
Re: programming languages history
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2022, 04:34:26 pm »
as well as with "glue" languages such as Python and Perl which rely heavily on libraries implemented by their betters.

'Their betters' in the former case: a handful of corporations that have been funneling billions of shekels into that language, to the point where that garbage is almost a synonym to crap like "AI" and """data science""". To a much lower extent, decent truly open source libraries. The language itself is trash. One of the reasons for this is that it is dumb and can be used by the lowest possible individuals, for instance: therefore the Embrace and Extension can happen at the largest possible scale.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2022, 04:38:05 pm by Martin_fr »

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2018