[chc]

> Second, I don't think an argument that most people choose based on quality is pertinent to the theory. The theory just states that the market decides.

It states that the market decides what? The article repeatedly suggests that what the market decides is which language is "good" or "better," which can only be true if people choose based on quality.

If the market choice is only loosely correlated with quality, then looking at the market tells us nothing about which languages are good (since "good" is a qualitative judgment).

There are only two ways I can see for market penetration to be relevant to the discussion of which languages are better:

1. The market chooses based on quality

2. "Good" is synonymous with "popular"

Otherwise you're measuring one thing and then announcing another. Market position is just popularity, and is only a reliable indicator of the things that determine popularity. If people don't choose based on the quality of a language, then looking at popularity to figure out which languages are good is like looking at the eating habits of the average American and concluding that Big Macs are the most nutritionally balanced food around because they're in the dominant market position.

[andrewcurioso]

The market decides if a language has any value.

It is not implying in any way that there is a 1:1 between popularity and quality (or any defined relationship for that matter). I think that would be ridiculous.

It is not meant as any means to grade or rank one language against the other. Only to say that a language has some value.

Rereading your comments I do not necessarily agree that the assumption is that market chooses based on quality. The market chooses based on perceived value which definitely takes into account quality but is not based entirely on it.

The implication being is that if there is truly no value or the value is so low that consumers are no longer willing to consume the product. Then the product will disappear or get replaced by a better and cheaper alternative.

In a way, it is simply saying, if someone uses a language then it has value -- at the very least -- to that person.

I guess the underlying message is: do not assume that because something doesn't have value to you that it is not valuable. If it didn't have any value it would (IFF the theory is correct -- I'm not saying it definitely is!) cease to be used.

I am anxiously awaiting your reply. If you have a good one, I might have to concede that the theory is disprove and/or incomplete.

[chc]

I can't argue with the claim "If somebody is using something, they must place a nonzero value on it." But it seems a lot weaker than what the article says, and it's not even related to the Twitter conversation you linked, which was about the relative qualities of programming languages.

This restated thesis could be 100% true and it still wouldn't mean that the dominant programming language isn't the worst one ever invented.

And a language with nonzero value could still be effectively worthless — if Language A is worth 1 Foo, Language B is worth 10000 Foo and Language C is worth 15000 Foo, then choosing Language A means you lose more (relative to the others) than you gain.

[freshhawk]

So your headline should have been "Think your language is more popular than mine: The market says otherwise".

No one would have argued with that.

[andrewcurioso]

I agree. The title is misleading. I'll have to be more careful on future HN posts. Although, if someone else posted it I would have little control over that.

I don't think your alternative isn't quite right either.

Perhaps, I should have just titled it something like: "Ask HN: Review my theory, The Free-Market Theory of Programming Languages"