This is not an original line of argument and in the absence of substance it’s especially unlikely to be more successful than decades of earlier failed iterations. Rather than calling people mediocre it would be far more productive to learn why other people have come to different conclusions about the languages you like.

The purpose of this comment section is the airing of unpopular views. Judging by your reaction I must be doing OK.

You could have shared a bit about your background with these languages. What do you know about Erlang, ML, Haskell and Lisp?

The beauty of a truly unpopular opinion is when it strikes a chord with the audience. Well done

I use Java for work and Lisp for everything else.

I love Lisp. It is superior language for real devs. But I also recognize that it will never work for newb programmers and the reality of corporate IT is that most devs are newbs or effectively newbs, not spending more time to level up as they think they know everything programming or are just not interested.

For these people, Java, is a way to get paid for writing boiler plate code without getting much done.

Show us. Let's play a game; I'll start with stuff written in C++

  * Skyrim
  * The F-35 flight control software
  * The Mars Curiosity rover

Your turn.

Sure, but can you imagine those mediocre devs trying to make contributions to a Lisp codebase? I feel much more confident giving them a tool like Java or Go. I mean, Go is the way it is because there are other people who believe that a blunt knife is better in the hands of a clod.

Better tool in what way? For what problem?

This tool is better misses the point.

If you want a quick mvp maybe Ruby is a better tool than using Haskell.

Mediocre means average. If the average developer can solve the problem in java maybe your favorite language isn't needed. The fact that a language has low adoption means it is missing features or late to a crowded market.

> The fact that a language has low adoption means it is missing features or late to a crowded market.

Or it may have the wrong features. It may even have "better" features, but not the right features. (A Formula 1 race car has lots more features than my Toyota Camry. I wouldn't drive it to the office, though. Unsurprisingly, Camrys have higher market share that Formula 1 cars.)

I don't know that an F1 car does have more features.

Your Camry probably has: 1) cruise control; 2) electric windows; 3) windows!; 4) airbags; 5) air conditioning and heating; 6) indicators; 7) headlights; 8) sound system; 9); 10) quiet exhaust; 11) way better pollution control; 12) way better mileage; 13) seats 5......

But the F1 racer has far better top speed, better acceleration, better braking, better handling, better collision protection, better aerodynamics (and active aerodynamics), far more internal sensors, telemetry of those sensors, and is far better for impressing girls.

Haha, sure.

Though ride quality would be appalling, and there's nowhere to put the girls.

Hi there. Nice to meet you. I'm one of those people you think don't exist.

Okay. So what's your rationale?

Java, in my mind, has a better ecosystem. It is easier to find useful tools and to integrate them into my development environment. There is a larger community of developers who are available to answer questions and there has been much more content written about how to do high quality engineering as a java dev. As a team lead, this makes my job immensely easier because I can point people towards high quality writing. Lisp, by comparison, remains completely niche.

The actual programming language is like the least interesting part of almost all development. It is but a tiny part of the whole system that lets us build and maintain software in teams. There are some people who really want to develop in a specific language. These people tend to lead with "we program in haskell" or "we program in lisp" in their recruiting emails. That's fine for some people but its not interesting to me. I care a lot more about the stuff around the programs.