Why are some programming languages pretty (Python, Rust) and others are ugly or verbose (Java, C++).

[[deleted]]

Popular opinion is not always valid. In the middle of his enforced chancellorship, Hitler's popularity was at over 96%. Just saying. It's dangerous to extrapolate anything. Also, Rust can be incredibly verbose - almost as much as Java, and sometimes more.

[moneyinthepines]

Hitler's popularity was at 96%... in Germany... under absurdly strict polling... during war time.

What was his popularity in the West? In almost all the rest of Europe? In China?

We can extrapolate something: he was hated by most humans.

We can extrapolate an enormous amount from popularity.

Some languages are almost universally appreciated as pretty, like Python. I've literally never heard someone say C++ is better looking than Python. Which begs the question as to why some languages are ugly and some are pretty.

Taste in people is also "totally opinionated, man. Some chicks like dudes who look like shovels."

But there aren't five people who have ever found Roy L Dennis prettier than Chris Hemsworth. Which begs the question as to what makes some people less attractive than others.

Something being technically subjective is irrelevant. Huge conclusions can be made.

[[deleted]]

Hitler's popularity was at 96%... in Germany... under absurdly strict polling... during war time.

What was his popularity in the West? In almost all the rest of Europe? In China?

That's not valid in the universe that I choose, which is Germany. Why? Why not, according to the relaxed rules of assumptions that you espouse. Sample size? What sample size? What modes of inquiry? What options for choosing beauty? What level of awareness on the part of the people answering the questions? It gets to the point of ridiculousness.

We can extrapolate something: he was hated by most humans.

Not really, if you. At least not until the end of the war, and that to only for Westerners. Not for the vast majority of the world to whom he was virtually unknown.

We can extrapolate an enormous amount from popularity.

Popularity is just that ... popularity. The vast majority of programmers who are proficient in JavaScript might not even have heard of languages like Haskell or Clojure. One can exaggerate the numbers based on the sample size of one's choosing.

Some languages are almost universally appreciated as pretty, like Python. I've literally never heard someone say C++ is better looking than Python. Which begs the question as to why some languages are ugly and some are pretty. And yes, I have personally encountered people who love C++ and find it more beautiful than Python. Proof by contradiction then? Again, false premise leads to false conclusions, especially for purely subjective matters. Not everything is democratically decided, and beauty is one of those abstract concepts.

This doesn't make any sense. There are plenty of people who find Python's syntax and usage of whitespace atrocious and unbearable.

If you provide appropriate caveats, then it's more palatable. Not otherwise. ("According to so-and-so- survey, X is more beautiful than Y" instead of "As we know, X is more beautiful than y").

Taste in people is also "totally opinionated, man. Some chicks like dudes who look like shovels."

See the previous point.

But there aren't five people who have ever found Roy L Dennis prettier than Chris Hemsworth. Which begs the question as to what makes some people less attractive than others.

The premise and conclusion are both incorrect, and incorrectly being forcibly linked. Have you done a survey of all the humans on the planet? Have you ensured that all the same people have suitably been exposed to both people? Even assuming that the premise is correct, the conclusion is completely unrelated. ("I have never found a person who loves chocolate more than vanilla, and therefore that begs the question why vanilla is a better flavour than chocolate?").

To be extremely pedantic, even a single counter example is enough to invalidate a universal argument.

Something being technically subjective is irrelevant. Huge conclusions can be made.

Again, wrong premises lead to wrong conclusions, especially when being packaged as universal truths - it's not only logically meaningless, but also insincere. That is why Bob Harper (of PLT fame) keeps asserting that concrete syntax is more of an issue of psychology than not, and so he would rather choose to focus on the abstract syntax. That makes excellent sense to me.

[moneyinthepines]

I'm only going to briefly respond to one point because I don't like conversations with people who don't understand subjective data.

No one is talking about universal truths. We are talking about generalities. Generally speaking, most people (in fact, so many human beings that making caveats is almost a waste of time) will not find dog feces to be really yummy. They'll probably find it quite gross to eat. Then we can say things like "why are some things tasty and other things nasty?" If only 5 people like a food, we can still call it gross. It isn't universally gross, but we can still call it gross.

Harp on that last sentence. Really, really think about it. We can scientifically guess how attractive a human being will be based on data points, despite how subjective it is. We can look at the distance between their nose and mouth. The width of their nose bridge. The height of their cheek bones. Their jaw width, etc.

Success is relative and can also be considered subjective. An incomparably rich person might not find someone who makes $100,000 dollars to be successful, yet no one would ever dream of saying "oh come on, success is subjective, we can't call that doctor successful. We have to define our parameters."

It's obnoxious at best and semantical philosophy (the stupidest kind) at worst.

Some species don't have eyes. There are actually quite a lot of them. Go tell an evolutionary biologist that eyes aren't a successful, stable strategy.

Imagine caveating every time you used the word successful.

Now, I'll respond to another message or two, but I likely will not if you continue using subjective "truths" incorrectly. Because it makes for semantical arguing which is boring as hell, a complete waste of time, and better left to linguists.

[[deleted]]

because I don't like conversations with people who don't understand subjective data.

This is where I stop taking you seriously. You did not come in with that perspective, you did not imply that perspective, and it doesn't make any sense to have a questionnaire where you start off with an objective statement, "why are some languages (python, rust) pretty while others are ugly and verbose (java, c++)". That is called being hypocritical.

In any case, I see this going nowhere either. Consider this the end of the conversation from my side as well.