RE this question, let's look at a couple of examples, metrics, etc.
(1) Haskell. As I understand the story, its growth rate was very low for a very long time. That gave those involved in creating the language the time to reflect deeply on the core ideas. The result is a language of uncommon power and expressiveness. One could argue that Elm is going through a somewhat similar albeit more compressed evolution. IMHO that is a good thing.
(2) Javascript. It was developed very quickly and it also became extremely popular quite quickly. That fast design period, however, is at the root of the many attempts to add to and modify Javascript so that it will better meet current needs. But a retrofit, whether it be to a language or house or piece of machinery, will seldom give a better result than a more thought-through initial design. I would argue that sometimes slower is better. (Consider the hare and the tortoise). In our world, fast goes along with popular, but there is a price to be paid for this.
(3) Angular I, II, III, ... [Disclaimer: I've been there]. These frameworks were pumped out quickly, had great initial success and adoption. IMHO the result was not so pretty, and left a lot of folks exhausted as they went from Angular N to Angular N + 1 and then possibly to something else entirely (in my case, Elm). Maybe slower and more thoughtful would have produced a happier result.
(4) Popularity is one metric, but there are others, among which are simplicity, reliability, refactorability, expressiveness, and influence. Relative lack of popularity means that by one metric thing X is "lower ranked." But is that the only metric? Is it the best? Or does it depend, e.g., on what you are trying to do. Different strokes for different folks: it is OK to follow the beat of a different drum.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
RE this question, let's look at a couple of examples, metrics, etc.
(1) Haskell. As I understand the story, its growth rate was very low for a very long time. That gave those involved in creating the language the time to reflect deeply on the core ideas. The result is a language of uncommon power and expressiveness. One could argue that Elm is going through a somewhat similar albeit more compressed evolution. IMHO that is a good thing.
(2) Javascript. It was developed very quickly and it also became extremely popular quite quickly. That fast design period, however, is at the root of the many attempts to add to and modify Javascript so that it will better meet current needs. But a retrofit, whether it be to a language or house or piece of machinery, will seldom give a better result than a more thought-through initial design. I would argue that sometimes slower is better. (Consider the hare and the tortoise). In our world, fast goes along with popular, but there is a price to be paid for this.
(3) Angular I, II, III, ... [Disclaimer: I've been there]. These frameworks were pumped out quickly, had great initial success and adoption. IMHO the result was not so pretty, and left a lot of folks exhausted as they went from Angular N to Angular N + 1 and then possibly to something else entirely (in my case, Elm). Maybe slower and more thoughtful would have produced a happier result.
(4) Popularity is one metric, but there are others, among which are simplicity, reliability, refactorability, expressiveness, and influence. Relative lack of popularity means that by one metric thing X is "lower ranked." But is that the only metric? Is it the best? Or does it depend, e.g., on what you are trying to do. Different strokes for different folks: it is OK to follow the beat of a different drum.