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.
- Ohloh, the open source network. http://ohloh.net.Google Scholar
- Sourceforge. http://sourceforge.net.Google Scholar
- Tiobe index. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Dattero and S. D. Galup. Programming languages and gender. Communications of the ACM, 47(1):99--102, 2004. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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.Google Scholar
- Q. Hardy. Technology workers are young (really young). http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/technology-workers-are-young-really-young/, 2013.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- D. R. MacIver. The hammer principle. http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool, 2010.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- L. A. Meyerovich and A. Rabkin. Socio-PLT: Principles for programming language adoption. In Onward!, 2012. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Okur and D. Dig. How do developers use parallel libraries? In Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), 2012. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- D. Patitucci. Gender and programming language preferences of computer programming students at moraine valley community college. Master of Science, Old Dominion University, 2005.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- E. Rogers. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press., New York, NY, 1995.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Sutton. Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15):1317--1338, 2006.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Empirical analysis of programming language adoption
Recommendations
Empirical analysis of programming language adoption
OOPSLA '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages & applicationsSome 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 ...
An Empirical Investigation into Programming Language Syntax
Recent studies in the literature have shown that syntax remains a significant barrier to novice computer science students in the field. While this syntax barrier is known to exist, whether and how it varies across programming languages has not been ...
Language Design for Program Manipulation
The design of procedural and object-oriented programming languages is considered with respect to how easily programs written in those languages can be formally manipulated. Current procedural languages such as Pascal, Modula-2 and Ada; generally support ...







Comments