From: "Howard R. Stearns" <elwoodus@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Language Implementation Survey
Date: 1996/03/28
Date: 1996-03-28T08:57:53-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <315AA754.167EB0E7@ix.netcom.com> (raw)
Here are the survey results. The first two sections give the numbers
and percentages
for the languages respondents cited as their "most preferred." This is
followed by
detailed results for:
- all languages
- each language cited as most preferred, in order of popularity
- a combination of all Lisp languaes
- a combination of all languages except Lisp.
Some respondents listed more than one language as being their most
prefered (even while evaluating the implementation for a single
langage). Languages described as being favored:
CL was favored 27 times (31%).
C++ was favored 13 times (15%).
C was favored 13 times (15%).
ADA was favored 9 times (10%).
SCHEME was favored 8 times ( 9%).
SMALLTALK was favored 6 times ( 7%).
PROLOG was favored 6 times ( 7%).
PERL was favored 5 times ( 6%).
PYTHON was favored 5 times ( 6%).
DYLAN was favored 3 times ( 3%).
MERCURY was favored 3 times ( 3%).
JAVA was favored 3 times ( 3%).
MODULA-3 was favored 2 times ( 2%).
EIFFEL was favored 2 times ( 2%).
SML was favored 2 times ( 2%).
PASCAL was favored 2 times ( 2%).
SATHER was favored 2 times ( 2%).
OBERON was favored 1 times ( 1%).
MUMPS was favored 1 times ( 1%).
SISAL was favored 1 times ( 1%).
CLP was favored 1 times ( 1%).
BETA was favored 1 times ( 1%).
PL/I was favored 1 times ( 1%).
HELIX-EXPRESS was favored 1 times ( 1%).
APPLESCRIPT was favored 1 times ( 1%).
CLEAN was favored 1 times ( 1%).
HASKELL was favored 1 times ( 1%).
ASM was favored 1 times ( 1%).
CAML was favored 1 times ( 1%).
XLISP-STAT was favored 1 times ( 1%).
ASSEMBLY was favored 1 times ( 1%).
AMIGA-E was favored 1 times ( 1%).
ICON was favored 1 times ( 1%).
AWK was favored 1 times ( 1%).
SH was favored 1 times ( 1%).
QBASIC was favored 1 times ( 1%).
Most preferred language:
CL received 25 responses (29%).
C++ received 9 responses (10%).
ADA received 7 responses ( 8%).
C received 6 responses ( 7%).
PROLOG received 5 responses ( 6%).
SCHEME received 5 responses ( 6%).
SMALLTALK received 5 responses ( 6%).
PERL received 3 responses ( 3%).
PYTHON received 3 responses ( 3%).
MERCURY received 2 responses ( 2%).
MODULA-3 received 2 responses ( 2%).
SATHER received 2 responses ( 2%).
XLISP-STAT received 1 responses ( 1%).
BETA received 1 responses ( 1%).
AMIGA-E received 1 responses ( 1%).
QBASIC received 1 responses ( 1%).
JAVA received 1 responses ( 1%).
HELIX-EXPRESS received 1 responses ( 1%).
PL/I received 1 responses ( 1%).
SISAL received 1 responses ( 1%).
PASCAL received 1 responses ( 1%).
MUMPS received 1 responses ( 1%).
OBERON received 1 responses ( 1%).
EIFFEL received 1 responses ( 1%).
DYLAN received 1 responses ( 1%).
Results for ALL-LANGUAGES:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 68 69
WINDOWS 43 49
MAC 30 36
AMIGA 6 5
SYMBOLICS 3 3
OS2 3 2
DOS 1 2
VMS 1 2
BEBOX 1 1
ATARI 1 1
CMS 1 1
UNKNOWN 0 0
VAX/VMS 0 1
REAL-TIME 0 1
NT 0 1
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 31%
Speed : 45%
Size of development environment : 30%
Application delivery : 33%
Calling other languages : 47%
Being called by other languages : 46%
Developement environment : 45%
GUI : 47%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 56 of the responses (64%).
LISP provided 13 of the responses (15%).
PYTHON provided 4 of the responses ( 5%).
MISC provided 3 of the responses ( 3%).
ADA provided 2 of the responses ( 2%).
C provided 2 of the responses ( 2%).
DYLAN provided 2 of the responses ( 2%).
SMALLTALK provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
SCHEME provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
C++ provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
PROLOG provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
SATHER provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
11% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
30% appeared to be from outside the US.
45% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for CL:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 72 68
WINDOWS 36 44
MAC 40 36
SYMBOLICS 12 12
UNKNOWN 0 0
OS2 4 0
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 48%
Speed : 28%
Size of development environment : 36%
Application delivery : 60%
Calling other languages : 68%
Being called by other languages : 60%
Developement environment : 24%
GUI : 52%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 11 of the responses (44%).
LISP provided 10 of the responses (40%).
DYLAN provided 2 of the responses ( 8%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses ( 4%).
C++ provided 1 of the responses ( 4%).
24% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
36% appeared to be from outside the US.
96% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for C++:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 67 67
WINDOWS 56 56
MAC 22 33
BEBOX 11 11
ATARI 11 11
REAL-TIME 0 11
DOS 0 11
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 44%
Speed : 33%
Size of development environment : 11%
Application delivery : 22%
Calling other languages : 56%
Being called by other languages : 78%
Developement environment : 67%
GUI : 22%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
44% appeared to be from outside the US.
33% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for ADA:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 71 86
WINDOWS 43 57
MAC 29 43
AMIGA 29 29
DOS 14 14
VMS 14 14
VAX/VMS 0 14
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 14%
Speed : 43%
Size of development environment : 14%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 29%
Being called by other languages : 29%
Developement environment : 57%
GUI : 57%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 6 of the responses (86%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses (14%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
14% appeared to be from outside the US.
14% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for C:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 67 83
UNIX 83 67
AMIGA 17 17
NT 0 17
VMS 0 17
MAC 0 17
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 33%
Speed : 33%
Size of development environment : 50%
Application delivery : 33%
Calling other languages : 17%
Being called by other languages : 17%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 33%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 3 of the responses (50%).
C provided 1 of the responses (17%).
MISC provided 1 of the responses (17%).
PYTHON provided 1 of the responses (17%).
17% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
17% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PROLOG:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 80 80
WINDOWS 20 40
MAC 20 40
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 40%
Speed : 20%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 40%
Calling other languages : 60%
Being called by other languages : 40%
Developement environment : 40%
GUI : 60%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 3 of the responses (60%).
PROLOG provided 1 of the responses (20%).
PYTHON provided 1 of the responses (20%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
20% appeared to be from outside the US.
80% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SCHEME:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
WINDOWS 40 60
MAC 40 40
AMIGA 20 0
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 40%
Application delivery : 40%
Calling other languages : 60%
Being called by other languages : 40%
Developement environment : 60%
GUI : 60%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 3 of the responses (60%).
SCHEME provided 1 of the responses (20%).
LISP provided 1 of the responses (20%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
20% appeared to be from outside the US.
40% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SMALLTALK:
%programming %delivering
MAC 60 60
WINDOWS 60 60
UNIX 40 60
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 40%
Size of development environment : 60%
Application delivery : 40%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 40%
Developement environment : 20%
GUI : 40%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 4 of the responses (80%).
SMALLTALK provided 1 of the responses (20%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PERL:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
WINDOWS 100 67
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 33%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 33%
Being called by other languages : 33%
Developement environment : 67%
GUI : 0%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
MISC provided 1 of the responses (33%).
C provided 1 of the responses (33%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (33%).
33% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
33% appeared to be from outside the US.
33% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PYTHON:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
WINDOWS 33 67
MAC 0 67
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 33%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 33%
Application delivery : 33%
Calling other languages : 67%
Being called by other languages : 67%
Developement environment : 33%
GUI : 67%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
PYTHON provided 2 of the responses (67%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (33%).
33% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
33% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for MERCURY:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 100%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 50%
Being called by other languages : 50%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
MISC provided 1 of the responses (50%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (50%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for MODULA-3:
%programming %delivering
OS2 50 50
MAC 50 50
UNIX 50 50
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 50%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 50%
Application delivery : 50%
Calling other languages : 50%
Being called by other languages : 50%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 50%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
LISP provided 1 of the responses (50%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (50%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
50% appeared to be from outside the US.
50% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SATHER:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 50%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 0%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
SATHER provided 1 of the responses (50%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (50%).
50% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for XLISP-STAT:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 100%
Application delivery : 100%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
LISP provided 1 of the responses (100%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for BETA:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
100% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for AMIGA-E:
%programming %delivering
AMIGA 100 100
UNIX 0 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 100%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for QBASIC:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for JAVA:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for HELIX-EXPRESS:
%programming %delivering
CMS 100 100
WINDOWS 100 100
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PL/I:
%programming %delivering
OS2 100 100
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SISAL:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 100%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
100% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PASCAL:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for MUMPS:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 100%
Application delivery : 100%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 100%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for OBERON:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 100%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for EIFFEL:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for DYLAN:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 0%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for ALL-EXCEPT-LISP:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 64 68
WINDOWS 46 52
MAC 23 34
AMIGA 7 7
OS2 4 4
VMS 2 4
DOS 2 4
CMS 2 2
BEBOX 2 2
ATARI 2 2
NT 0 2
VAX/VMS 0 2
REAL-TIME 0 2
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 25%
Speed : 46%
Size of development environment : 25%
Application delivery : 20%
Calling other languages : 37%
Being called by other languages : 41%
Developement environment : 52%
GUI : 43%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 42 of the responses (75%).
PYTHON provided 4 of the responses ( 7%).
MISC provided 3 of the responses ( 5%).
C provided 2 of the responses ( 4%).
SMALLTALK provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
SATHER provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
PROLOG provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
LISP provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
7% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
29% appeared to be from outside the US.
23% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for all Lisp languages (cl, sheme, xlisp):
%programming %delivering
UNIX 74 71
WINDOWS 35 45
MAC 42 39
SYMBOLICS 10 10
AMIGA 3 0
UNKNOWN 0 0
OS2 3 0
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 42%
Speed : 42%
Size of development environment : 39%
Application delivery : 58%
Calling other languages : 65%
Being called by other languages : 55%
Developement environment : 32%
GUI : 55%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 14 of the responses (45%).
LISP provided 12 of the responses (39%).
DYLAN provided 2 of the responses ( 6%).
SCHEME provided 1 of the responses ( 3%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses ( 3%).
C++ provided 1 of the responses ( 3%).
19% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
32% appeared to be from outside the US.
84% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
next reply other threads:[~1996-03-28 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-03-28 0:00 Howard R. Stearns [this message]
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Language Implementation Survey Ted Dennison
1996-03-29 0:00 ` Scott Leschke
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-04-01 0:00 ` M. Alan Newman
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Ron Stodden
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Thomas Lindgren
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox