andrewcurioso

The site must be using NoSQL, since it is down for me right now. I wish it would load, the article sounds interesting.

10 pizzas? I'm getting ripped off. For me that's 7 pizzas.

To me the biggest two things:

1) The dial pad is one of the only things still in a separate window, which is a pain when entering conference call passwords (which is what I use Skype for half of the time). Before you could just click in the call window and start hitting numbers.

2) I can no longer have two different chats open side by side.

Aesthetically I actually don't mind it. It's the huge step backwards in UX that I hate.

I don't have anyone to do a test video call with right now but I'm pretty sure you can drag the divider bar at the bottom of the window up and it will reveal the chat box again.

Can anyone confirm?

P.S. I personally think the new Skype 5 for Mac is a disaster

This is very topical for me. I have been drafting a paper that I was hoping to submit to the IEEE. This "might" change my mind. I'm not sure yet. There are stipulations that you can publish your work on personal sites if you get permission from the organization and you include a copyright notice at the top.

Incidentally, they also have an optional but suggested charge for papers containing color diagrams and over-length papers. They say that an organization should include publication costs in their budget for the research and thus the fees are reasonable.

The author guidelines, are dozens of pages long and I only had a week to absorb them so correct me if I missed something.

Agreed. I don't want to ask you to complete my thought, but how would you define value in a way that makes sense in that context? Or is it hopeless?

My biggest mistake: using the word "good" What I should of said is "has value"

I have since conceded that point and removed the word "good" (which is subjective) from the post.

Also, the only evidence I have is observation. Which is why I posted the idea. To get good constructive input from people like you!

You make some good points. It is an expensive proposition to switch languages, which is why I excluded that explicitly in the post.

It is also expensive to train people. So that alone may disprove the theory. I'm not sure yet.

On a side note, as far as I know, being based on observation only does not preclude the use of the word theory. It is technically correct (at least according to the dictionary definition of theory). Although, I agree hypothesis may be better.

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"

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.

That is why it is a theory and I am opening it up to peer review. Otherwise I would have stated it as a fact.

Also, "free" as in choice, not "free" as in cost.

Three things:

First, thank you for reading. This article was meant entirely to spur discussion so I thank you for taking the time to discuss.

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 does not infer than any metric the market uses is inherently better or worse than others.

Third, your COBOL example is explicitly excluded from the theory as not being in a free-market. Thus it is fading away slowly. If it were truly up to the market (no external regulation from business interests) it would be dead.*

* In this case the market is defined as the direct consumers of the programming language. The programmers themselves. As opposed to indirect consumers (organizations).

It's a bit intentionally vague. For instance, let's say there is a language dedicated to hardware prototypes (let's call it Gabview)...

Say it is very popular now but it is difficult to use and no one enjoys using it. If the theory holds true, a new language will come around gain popularity with hardware firmware developers and Gabview will fade off into the distance.