> My analogy is that different kinds of hammers don't compete with each other.

Sure they do.

If you're doing framing, you might prefer a rigger's axe or a framing hammer.

If you're hanging an axe, you might prefer a mallet or a dead blow hammer.

There's lots of overlap, and hence competition, between different hammer types.

Just ask people what the round end of a ball peen is for. Few people know what peening is, fewer know how to do it, yet a ball peen hammer is still one of the most common hammers around. It's competing against other specialized hammers and winning because people simply have it already.

If there’s overlap in what they can be used for then there will be competition there

This is also replying to nordsieck, who made the same point.

You are both correct, but I was using "competition" in a different sense. I was thinking in terms of how people often talk about these issues: as if there was a One Language To Rule Them All. That is the notion that I object to.

When considering the best tool for a particular job, the different contenders are competing in a sense for that job. But I see that as not being the same as when people are asserting that a given language is always the superior choice independent of the task at hand.

The responses to my initial comment really surprise me. I had no idea I was saying anything controversial, but apparently I am!

Saying that languages compete isn’t the same thing as saying one language is objectively better than another. It just means that people might consider both options and weigh up the pros and cons of both. When people say that companies compete, they aren’t saying that one is objectively better than another, if anything it’s the opposite