|
|
|
|
|
|
by tialaramex
162 days ago
|
|
|
> The point is that languages - indeed, all technologies, especially in a competitive market - reach or approach their peak market share relatively quickly. This predicts nothing in particular, for any outcome we can squint at this and say it was fulfilled, so in this sense it's actually worse than the XKCD cartoon. It's not that it's a novel or strange theory, it's just wrong. > if a technology offers a big competitive advantage, it's adopted relatively quickly as people don't want to fall behind the competition Yeah, no. See, humans have a strong preference for the status quo so it isn't enough that some technology "offers a big competitive advantage", they'd usually just rather not actually. Lots of decision makers read Google's "Move Fast and Fix Things" and went "Yeah, that's not applicable to us [for whatever reason]" and moved on. It doesn't matter whether they were right to decide it wasn't applicable, it only matters whether their competitors reach a different conclusion and execute effectively. |
|
|
Okay. Can you provide an example of a language that steadily and gradually grew in popularity over a long time (well over a decade) and that this slow growth was the lion share of its market size growth? You say "it's just wrong" but I think it applies to 100% of cases, and if you want to be specific when it comes to numbers, then even languages whose market share has grown by a factor of 5 after age 10 is a small minority, and even a factor of 2 is a minority.
> Yeah, no. See, humans have a strong preference for the status quo so it isn't enough that some technology "offers a big competitive advantage", they'd usually just rather not actually.
Except, again, all languages, successful and unsuccessful alike, have approached their peak market share in their first decade or so. You can quibble over what I mean by "approach" but remember that Rust, at age 10+, needs to grow its market share by a factor of 10 to even match C++'s already-diminished market share today.