Are you implying that creators of Node and Java are stupid and lack passion? It seems like you are... And it's a) not relevant here at all; b) simply not true.
> It is due to inability to acquire and maintain an appropriate mindset.
It's debatable, but I tend to agree here.
Not popular often means you have to write libraries or code yourself that in a more popular language would already be sitting around ready to use. In other words, in a business context, it might cost you more money to use a less popular language.
> it is not a language's fault
I don't agree. I think for instance that Erlang could likely have a more C like syntax, and that would have bought it more users. There's plenty of other stuff that you can do to make a learning curve relatively easy, so that people can slowly start out and get to know a language.
Of course there are factors beyond the control of a language's designers and proponents, but looking at things like PHP and Ruby, you can certainly get popular without, say, having huge corporate backing.
This reminded me about famous Linus rant against C++ - in the same vein it can be argued that "cryptic" (actually very readable and consistent IMHO) syntax would be a win even if it did nothing more than keep C (style) programmers out of Erlang development :)
You're certainly right from business perspective, however.
That "common nonsense" you speak of (aka Java) runs on billions of devices and handles trillions in revenue. Erlang keeps legacy phone switches running. It's like people who say X language is amazing and lament the crap that is English.
Who cares?
English runs the world economy.
In what sense? Why do I have to paste this link: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html here of all places?
Don't take my word for it, ask a famous Lisper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_Better
Also, I'm afraid Java is a perfect counterexample for "worse is better". It does everything and then some, but there are better (like, worse - less complicated, easier to use, more focused) solutions for almost everything Java does... And Java is still insanely popular.
Lastly, you seem to want to equate popularity with quality, and then you give Linux as an example. Surely, Windows is better because it's installed on many more PCs than Linux?
Java does that. Linux does that. Windows does that. Lisp doesn't.
And note - your article wasn't written by the author - it was written by someone else.
You're entitled to your own definition of words, in this case you defined "worse" (and this definition is very popular, too!) and it's ok. My perspective is different and so my definition is - I don't care about "average people" at all, I like very much "mental contortions" and I enjoy making more than shipping, and so "worse" for me means something different altogether.
I just wanted to what you meant by "worse", really. I won't agree with you here, but I understand and accept your opinion.
I edited my previous post in reply to your note at the end.
There are limits of course, and always complexity, but distributed incentive based systems appear to empirically work rather well.
"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses" -stroustrup
If you have to write about how your language matters, you have already missed the point. If it mattered, people would be using it.
[1] http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/31/Eugene...
[2] http://blog.whatsapp.com/index.php/2012/01/1-million-is-so-2...
If it is not that popular (which is rather good) it is not a language's fault. It is due to inability to acquire and maintain an appropriate mindset.
btw, there is a nice lecture - http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Erlang%2BJoe%2BA...