>In our field, tools get chosen not by merit but by what's the current fad. It's unfortunate, but this fact makes those two questions unhelpful in moving the discussion forward.
That's an idealistic and elitist response.
Very removed from the empirical and scientific spirit, which would suggest that if people use other languages for large projects (say C/C++) there are reasons for this, besides them being "fashion victims" and "doing it wrong".
Some of those reasons would be the appropriateness of those languages for the computers of the 70's - 90's (at a time when Lisp machines were slow and resource hungry), or the availability of tons of library code afterwards, the better control over the memory layout needed for large scale projects like a broswser, an OS, Office or Photoshop, etc etc.
Notice how the response just moves the goalposts a little further, without trully answering. Even, for example, if you are right and languages are used because they are fads, you failed to answer why LISP wasn't picked as a fad itself.
I would think that 'fad' playes a role sometimes and in some areas, but that it is neither sufficient nor necessary to describe language adoption.
But there are mechanisms which may look like 'fad'. For example in the academic community a lot of progress is only incremental and people need something new to publish incremental results.
Industry demands from Universities to teach the language de jour.
'Industry analysts' give technology guidance and tell companies what to use.
Often it is seems 'modern to reinvent everything. Look at Clojure, a Lisp dialect which is basically zero backwards compatible. It allows people to reimplement the old stuff, sometimes in slightly different ways and claim some achievement. You also don't have to deal with the old people, which 'know it already' or with 'old' technology. The community is self-selected to newcomers and those willing to reimplement old stuff and to invent newish stuff.
It is also about communicating ideas. If one uses a language few speak, one gets less attention, mindshare, etc. Thus use something which in the hype cycle is on an increasing angle, where the attention of many is easier to get. If one wants to promote a new framework, better use a popular language underneath it. Otherwise it could be nicely engineered, but few will hear of it, few will try it and few people will use it.
Also some technologies are popular - like the JVM - and this allows to leverage engineering efforts by others. Popular technologies often seem to be ported widely and seem to have more active maintenance.
The idea that the core language is not what drives adoption is clear. There are a ton of other things that go into this kind of thing.
Tooling, Library, Schooling, existing base of people that know the language, CPU architecture, Memory constraints and so on. And of course all the nontechnical things like marketing.
So saying that there is not as much lisp as c++ code is not a argument that c++ is a better language.
That's true, but the fact that you can somehow seperate the core language from the other factors ("tooling, library, schooling, existing base of people that know the language, CPU architecture, Memory constraints") is a fallacy.
Might be possible for a totally academic or greenfield small time project, but not at all if you do commercial and pragmatic oriented development, with teams, constraints, deliverables etc.
So while I agree that "that there is not as much lisp as c++ code" is not a argument that c++ is a better (core) language, I also think that this fact shows that C++ is a better language+extras for more projects.
I would say it 'was' not it is. The amount of legacy java does not speak that its better right now. Only that it was better (or persived to be better) in the past. The argument for perseption vs actual 'goodness' is almost impossible to answer.
The intresting thing about java is that is was cleary worse then something and only became better because people used it so much. Java was adopted and developed around the same time that self was around as well. Now self at the time was owned by the same company, self was just as small to send over the wire, self allready very (very, very) performant (compared to java witch was grindingly slow) and had much better tooling.
The reason for all this seam that the people at sun just did not know understand what the technology they had laying around in some reasearch project.
Java was pushed and became what it is now, self was not and became what is now and thus proving that even with everything speaking for you at a point in time, you might not.
(PS, in the end it might have been a good thing that java was picked over self since self might actually have won over in the webspace and we would all be using propritary applets instead of the web we have today.)
That's an idealistic and elitist response.
Very removed from the empirical and scientific spirit, which would suggest that if people use other languages for large projects (say C/C++) there are reasons for this, besides them being "fashion victims" and "doing it wrong".
Some of those reasons would be the appropriateness of those languages for the computers of the 70's - 90's (at a time when Lisp machines were slow and resource hungry), or the availability of tons of library code afterwards, the better control over the memory layout needed for large scale projects like a broswser, an OS, Office or Photoshop, etc etc.
Notice how the response just moves the goalposts a little further, without trully answering. Even, for example, if you are right and languages are used because they are fads, you failed to answer why LISP wasn't picked as a fad itself.