From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ad802a80672614cc,start X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f907c,ad802a80672614cc,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf907c,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ad802a80672614cc,start X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,ad802a80672614cc,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f4ea4,ad802a80672614cc,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf4ea4,public X-Google-Thread: 10dd18,ad802a80672614cc,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10dd18,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,ad802a80672614cc,start X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: "Howard R. Stearns" Subject: Language Implementation Survey Date: 1996/03/28 Message-ID: <315AA754.167EB0E7@ix.netcom.com> X-Deja-AN: 144715467 content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Netcom x-netcom-date: Thu Mar 28 8:57:53 AM CST 1996 mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.eiffel x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.2 sun4c) Date: 1996-03-28T08:57:53-06:00 List-Id: 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.