research-article

Empirical analysis of programming language adoption

Authors:

Leo A. Meyerovich,

Ariel S. RabkinAuthors Info & Claims

OOPSLA '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages & applications

Pages 1 - 18

https://doi.org/10.1145/2509136.2509515

Published: 29 October 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Some programming languages become widely popular while others fail to grow beyond their niche or disappear altogether. This paper uses survey methodology to identify the factors that lead to language adoption. We analyze large datasets, including over 200,000 SourceForge projects, 590,000 projects tracked by Ohloh, and multiple surveys of 1,000-13,000 programmers.

We report several prominent findings. First, language adoption follows a power law; a small number of languages account for most language use, but the programming market supports many languages with niche user bases. Second, intrinsic features have only secondary importance in adoption. Open source libraries, existing code, and experience strongly influence developers when selecting a language for a project. Language features such as performance, reliability, and simple semantics do not. Third, developers will steadily learn and forget languages. The overall number of languages developers are familiar with is independent of age. Finally, when considering intrinsic aspects of languages, developers prioritize expressivity over correctness. They perceive static types as primarily helping with the latter, hence partly explaining the popularity of dynamic languages.

References

[1]

Ohloh, the open source network. http://ohloh.net.

[2]

Sourceforge. http://sourceforge.net.

[3]

Tiobe index. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html.

[4]

R. Agarwal and J. Prasad. A Field Study of the Adoption of Software Process Innovations by Information Systems Professionals. IEEE Trans. Engr. Management, 47(3), 2000.

[5]

Y. Chen, R. Dios, A. Mili, L. Wu, and K. Wang. An empirical study of programming language trends. IEEE Software, 22:72--78, May 2005.

Digital Library

[6]

R. Dattero and S. D. Galup. Programming languages and gender. Communications of the ACM, 47(1):99--102, 2004.

Digital Library

[7]

F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8):982--1003, 1989.

Digital Library

[8]

M. E. Glickman. Parameter estimation in large dynamic paired comparison experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 48(3):377--394, 1999.

[9]

S. Hanenberg. Faith, hope, and love: an essay on software science's neglect of human factors. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), 2010.

Digital Library

[10]

B. C. Hardgrave and R. A. Johnson. Toward an information systems development acceptance model: the case of object-oriented systems development. IEEE Trans. Engr. Management, 50(3), 2003.

[11]

Q. Hardy. Technology workers are young (really young). http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/technology-workers-are-young-really-young/, 2013.

[12]

S. Karus and H. Gall. A study of language usage evolution in open source software. In Proceedings of the 8th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2011.

Digital Library

[13]

D. R. MacIver. The hammer principle. http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool, 2010.

[14]

L. A. Meyerovich and A. Rabkin. How not to survey developers and repositories: experiences analyzing language adoption. In Workshop on Evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools (PLATEAU), 2012.

Digital Library

[15]

L. A. Meyerovich and A. Rabkin. Socio-PLT: Principles for programming language adoption. In Onward!, 2012.

Digital Library

[16]

F. Morandat, B. Hill, L. Osvald, and J. Vitek. Evaluating the design of the R language. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), 2012.

Digital Library

[17]

S. Okur and D. Dig. How do developers use parallel libraries? In Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), 2012.

Digital Library

[18]

C. Parnin, C. Bird, and E. Murphy-Hill. Java generics adoption: how new features are introduced, championed, or ignored. In Proceedings of the 8th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2011.

Digital Library

[19]

D. Patitucci. Gender and programming language preferences of computer programming students at moraine valley community college. Master of Science, Old Dominion University, 2005.

[20]

G. Richards, C. Hammer, B. Burg, and J. Vitek. The eval that men do: A large-scale study of the use of eval in JavaScript applications. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), 2011.

Digital Library

[21]

C. K. Riemenschneider, B. C. Hardgrave, and F. D. Davis. Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 28, 2002.

Digital Library

[22]

E. Rogers. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press., New York, NY, 1995.

[23]

C. Scaffidi, M. Shaw, and B. Myers. Estimating the numbers of end users and end user programmers. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, pages 207--214, 2005.

Digital Library

[24]

S. Sutton. Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15):1317--1338, 2006.

[25]

V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, pages 425--478, 2003.

Digital Library

Cited By

Cotroneo DDe Luca RLiguori P(2025)DeVAIC: A tool for security assessment of AI-generated codeInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107572177(107572)Online publication date: Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107572
Awasthi TMorshed AWilliams TSwain D(2024)Simulation Approaches Used for Management and Decision Making in the Beef Production Sector: A Systematic ReviewAnimals10.3390/ani1411163214:11(1632)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111632
Hermans FSchlesinger AEdwards JTaeumel M(2024)A Case for Feminism in Programming Language DesignProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software10.1145/3689492.3689809(205-222)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689492.3689809
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Empirical analysis of programming language adoption
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. General programming languages

Recommendations

Empirical analysis of programming language adoption
OOPSLA '13

Some programming languages become widely popular while others fail to grow beyond their niche or disappear altogether. This paper uses survey methodology to identify the factors that lead to language adoption. We analyze large datasets, including over ...
Experiences with a simple structured programming language
SIGCSE '74: Proceedings of the fourth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education

A great deal of interest has developed in structured programming [Dahl, Dijkstra, and Hoare, 1972] during the past few years. This paper is concerned with some experiences obtained in the use of a structured programming language in the computer science ...
The intangibility of e-services: effects on perceived risk and acceptance

This study examines the construct of intangibility within the e-services context and clarifies why business-to-consumer services are made more intangible when they are virtualized and offered as Internet e-services. Clarifying the intangibility of e-...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

OOPSLA '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages & applications

October 2013

904 pages

ISBN:9781450323741

DOI:10.1145/2509136

Co-chair:
Antony Hosking
Purdue University, USA
,
General Chair:
Patrick Eugster
Purdue University, USA
,
Program Chair:
Cristina V. Lopes
University of California, Irvine, USA

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 48, Issue 10
OOPSLA '13
October 2013
867 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/2544173
Editor:
Mark W. Bailey
Hamilton College, Clinton, NY
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2013 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 29 October 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SPLASH '13

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

SPLASH '13: Conference on Systems, Programming, and Applications: Software for Humanity

October 29 - 31, 2013

Indiana, Indianapolis, USA

Acceptance Rates

OOPSLA '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 50 of 189 submissions, 26%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,244 submissions, 22%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

102
Total Citations
View Citations
2,049
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)228
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)29

Reflects downloads up to 04 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Cotroneo DDe Luca RLiguori P(2025)DeVAIC: A tool for security assessment of AI-generated codeInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107572177(107572)Online publication date: Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107572
Awasthi TMorshed AWilliams TSwain D(2024)Simulation Approaches Used for Management and Decision Making in the Beef Production Sector: A Systematic ReviewAnimals10.3390/ani1411163214:11(1632)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111632
Hermans FSchlesinger AEdwards JTaeumel M(2024)A Case for Feminism in Programming Language DesignProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software10.1145/3689492.3689809(205-222)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689492.3689809
Yang HNong YZhang TLuo XCai H(2024)Learning to Detect and Localize Multilingual BugsProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36608041:FSE(2190-2213)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660804
Crichton WKrishnamurthi S(2024)Profiling Programming Language LearningProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36498128:OOPSLA1(29-54)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649812
Li WMarino AYang HMeng NLi LCai H(2024)How Are Multilingual Systems Constructed: Characterizing Language Use and Selection in Open-Source Multilingual SoftwareACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363196733:3(1-46)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631967
Yang ZKeung JSun ZZhao YLi GJin ZLiu SLi Y(2024)Improving domain-specific neural code generation with few-shot meta-learningInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107365166(107365)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107365
Gordillo ACalero CMoraga MGarcía FFernandes JAbreu RSaraiva J(2024)Programming languages ranking based on energy measurementsSoftware Quality Journal10.1007/s11219-024-09690-432:4(1539-1580)Online publication date: 27-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-024-09690-4
Rennels LChasins S(2023)How Domain Experts Use an Embedded DSLProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36228517:OOPSLA2(1499-1530)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622851
Furia CTorkar RFeldt R(2023)Towards Causal Analysis of Empirical Software Engineering Data: The Impact of Programming Languages on Coding CompetitionsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/361166733:1(1-35)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3611667
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents